Yes show them the way. Show them that only by useing steam can they save pc gaming.
Then they get to be one of us one of us one of us.

I generally like steam, but there are some legitimate issues:
The first most universal problem is they are very close to being a monopoly and at some point they might start behaving like a monopoly; with steamworks being used for by others for new releases such as FO:New Vegas, we are one step closer
The second is a general issue with account based digital distribution - they can ban your account and you are totally hosed. There are bascially no consumer protections against this arbitraty behaviour. Generally you can't transfer account to another person (and that is true of all account based download serviced that I know of). Now selling accounts is bad; but if I die my account technically goes bye-bye as well, because of the non-transferable nature of these products.
You also can't give a disk to your buddy to play once you have finished playing it; once its been registered on steam works.
If steam or another service goes down or there is a rights fight they can cut off a game quickly with no reimbursal. GOG is the only major exception, they can prevent access to redownloading, but if you have a back-up copy your OK because of no DRM.
As with you I have never had a problem with steam, but I am concerned about these issues and as I buy new games and attach them to my steam account considerable amounts of money are now being spent.

Only in the sense that Securom (including pre-activation model) and Gamespy Arcade had "monopolies". There is still retail, and Steam doesn't actually have any input on the games that use said framework (that was kind of the point of how Steamworks was released).
Consumer protection against arbitrary banning is common sense. If Steam ACTUALLY arbitrarily banned people, people wouldn't use it. I have had a Steam account since the early betas (used it to get a free Counterstrike to play with my friends) and haven't been arbitrarily banned yet, so I am not too concerned.
As for the rest: I believe that is the point of licensed software, but I don't have enough legal knowledge to debate it.
*cough* Don't copy that floppy *cough*. :p
Seriously though, I am pretty sure that was intentional.
You can actually do the same with Steam. You just might need to use a crack to play it, which is actually true of a lot of retail games with activation-based DRM models anyway.
Also, my experience is that they use the same basic approach GoG does. The Alien Shooter guy got angry at Strategy First and tried to pull Alien Shooter 2 and replace it with AS: Reloaded. So those of us who owned it, as of a few months ago, got the AS: Reloaded replacement, but also got to keep our AS2. You can't buy it anymore, but it is still on the account. Sort of like how GoG handles Operation Flashpoint :p

I don't know if you are joking or not. But the idea that loaning a game out is the same as making an illegal copy is absurd!

Brace yourself . . . =)

Of course its intentional - and I wasn't talking about copying anything; I was talking about giving MY disk to a friend.

What's the difference between making a copy for your friend and giving your friend the original, especially if you're done?

How is that actually different than giving him a copy? I'm assuming you've already played the game. You aren't giving your opportunity to play the game when you loan it out. Your friend gets to play the game for free. In essence, you both played the game and paid for 1 copy. So, technically, from a purely financial perspective, there is 0 difference in loaning a copy or making a copy.

Bingo.
Then you factor in "Hey, can I have that back? I want to replay and get the uber secret ending", and you further remove any difference.

At one point gog.com was stating that they might have to pull the various Colin McRae and other car off of our accounts as well. I don't think this has happened yet, but I might be wrong.
Also, yes cracks are always an option, but I prefer to stay away from cracks and sites with cracks on them. Legally and morally its a very gray area.

lol . . . I believe he is talking about a common practice from the days when you actually owned the game. You install, you play, you uninstall . . . you loan your game to a friend, he installs, he plays, he uninstall and . . . gives your disk back. Ah, the good ol days . . .=)
Basically, he talking about doing one of the things publisher are trying to stop with DRM . . . =)
Publishers want . . . demand . . . to be paid for each person playing the game. Would his integrity be questioned if he simply allowed his friend to start and play a complete game on his system with the same disk?

Because loaning a product out isn't breaking any laws (no, EULAs are not laws). While making a copy breaks one or more. Big difference. Once you buy a product it's your's to do what you like, as long as no laws are broken. Once again people fail to see that games, like anything else, are commodities that can be bought, sold, re-sold, or givin out. Just like any other product. The things that producers of these products do to prevent normal, long standing practices of daily commerce are the immoral acts. Re-selling or loaning such products out aren't immoral or illegal at all.

@all thouse complaining about Steam's adverts: My rule no. 1 for any new software (Word, Firefox, Spotify, Steam, any game, whatever): read the options/prefences first and adjust them accordingly. Right now, adverts are easy to turn off (as is Steam starting up in the background). Sure, you may argue that Steam may enforce adverts at some arbitary point in the future, but I would imagine that Battle.net will give them a scare first.

Actually, the problem is that people think games ARE commodities like swords or potions to kill your wife and inherit her land.
If I recall correctly, the way most TOU/TOS/EULA are set up these days, games are much closer to software (GASP!).
Example: You own a company. You buy a license to run five copies of Matlab. You aren't allowed to loan out one of those copies to your buddy. Those copies were purchased for your company. You effectively leased (or, if you want to add negative connotations, "rented") the copy.
So that is why, at least with digital distribution, giving someone your key is against the terms of use.