That isn't DRM. It isn't a right to use software unhindered, therefore it isn't managing anything.

Oh my, i forgot what a level headed and fair guy you are and to which lenghts you're prepared to go to see other people's POV's *cough*
Off course that a great number of people around here who are vocal on the issue and who strongly oppose DRM, including myself, repeatedly stating all throughout the boards that some DRM models such as Impulse or one time online activations are perfectly acceptable and more or less ok given the current state of affairs isn't doing just that ? Off course not, i mean, how could you keep up with the 'militant' schtick if it was...
It seems to me that that's exactly what compromising means, the difference is in order to compromise people don't have to go out of their way to define or consider things based on egocentric approaches such as 'If it incoviniences me, etc, etc'.
I can't say for sure how others feel, but aside from those that have stricter self imposed rules, and even those aren't 'militants' btw, they just consider morals and principles only instead of incovinience and practicalities only or instead of a mix of the two (which is pretty much where i stand), and they're perfectly within their right to do so, i'm willing to bet the main problem people have with Impulse right now is their regional issues, issues that i honestly hope Impulse and all other platforms manage to sort out in the near future. Bottomline, what keeps me away from Impulse right now are regional issues, not DRM related issues inherent to the platform itself, although 3rd party DRM is still a great concern, but that goes for basically every platform out there, except gog, obviously.
We don't have DRM on everything, we don't have it on gog. You're stubborn and you're used to win arguments by attrition, and move along your agenda of trying to completely remove all meaning from the word/expression DRM. Well, you'll have a tough time doing it on stubborness alone, namely through your repeated attempts to drag gog into the mix. I can be pretty stubborn myself when i put my mind to it.
gog in itself as a platform is 100% DRM free, gog's catalogue is 100% DRM free.
So, once more, 1,2,3, all togheter now: THIS HERE SERVICE IS 100% DRM FREE! :p
"At least is the Steam model" Well, I really don't want to get into it, but i'll tell you this. You keep talking about steam as if steam is something everybody should be willing to accept or even wish for as the standart for DD. It's not. In my eyes the subscription model makes steam the most questionable platform out there in terms of DRM, and frankly, to an extent i wonder if it wasn't for the widespread acceptance of steam if models such as UBI DRM would ever even have seen the light of day.
Steam isn't evil and steam isn't to blame for UBI's new scheme. To be perfectly clear, that's not what i'm saying at all, ok? Steam is just another DD platform and it's up to each of us to make our own minds about it.

Can't define? Most any word is easily defined (even if full definitions can be a bit lengthy), and DRM is no different. The only issue is that definitions tend to vary a bit from person to person. There will typically be some core aspects to the definition shared by just about everyone, but when it comes to edge cases the definitions can end up diverging quite a bit. However, none of this presents any kind of insurmountable barrier to discussing the issues. All that's required is that people make an honest effort to understand what definitions other people are using for a given term, in order to understand the concepts that people are trying to communicate. Of course, the main problem is that many folks actually have no interest in understanding what others are trying to say, and as a result we get the kind of pointless quibbling that's been going on in this thread.

Oy.
Do you run around screaming that you are either "with us or against us"? Do you accuse people of being industry plants if they don't rant against DRM every second of the day? Do you feel the urge to attack everyone the moment that they have a differing opinion?
If the answer to those questions is "no", then you aren't a militantly anti-DRM whackjob (although you may be a redneck :p). That isn't to say you aren't a whackjob for other reasons, but who is really sane these days (not me...)?
And for the record: I was never really the one defining DRM itself as "what inconveniences me". I was saying the other side was, considering that GoG was branded DRM-free whereas Impulse was not, when the only difference was whether you had to copy a regfile when you transferred it from one system to another. And, as people in this thread have pointed out (independently of me, by the way :p), GoG sort of breaks a lot of "rules" of DRM.
What I was saying was that people tend to define "DRM" as what bothers them, and the things that don't bother them as "not DRM'. This thread contains quite a few examples of that too. Why? Because "DRM" is a naughty word. People feel that nothing good can come out of it, so anything they like has to not be DRM. That strikes me as slightly militant, but whatever.
And we get it: You don't like Steam. You are stubborn and you are used to winning arguments by attrition (see what I did there, taking a small part of your argument that you later clarify and running with it? :p (see what I did there? Intentionally pushing buttons as a reaction to people feeling the need to run around attacking me :p (see what I did there? nested parentheses :p))). If you keep pointing out that anyone who likes Steam is part of the problem and is paving the way for Ubi-DRM, people will start believing you. We should all rant and rail against the things that we actually like, because you are either against DRM or supporting it.
And, since you felt the need to state your opinion on the matter, let me just clarify why I felt the need to point out how vague the definition of DRM is:
I don't like Ubi-DRM. I don't like activation-model Securom. I do like Steam and EA's DLC model, but a lot of people don't. I don't particularly like Impulse, but that is more because Stardock's client and servers suck compared to Valve's (I actually really like Stardock :p). But the problem is, half the ninkers out there feel the need to scream "No DRM' and "Anti-DRM'. But everyone has their own definition of what they consider DRM. So there is no way to come to a consensus and actually accomplish anything unless people start getting more specific.
Otherwise, all a company has to do is call it a "service" instead of a DRM (or say that it is "100% DRM-free" :p) and people will think it doesn't count. Then we get something as laughable as the MW2/L4D2 boycotts which only serve to hurt things. Hell, there is at least one guy here who thinks Steam and Impulse in and of themselves are DRM-free. Can you see how that might prove problematic during a boycott? :p
And, while we are on the topic of hijacking threads to soapbox, let me say my biggest pet peeve with all the anti-DRM people: You don't offer an alternative. Raging against the proverbial machine is fine and dandy, but if you don't provide an alternative, you really are wasting your time and sound like an idiot.
Some people say that DRM is evil and should be done away with. Somehow, I don't think the publishers (or devs, for that matter) will really agree (en masse).
Others point at GoG as an example of the right way to do things. Unfortunately, GoG is just demonstrating that older games don't need DRM (which is something that has already been discovered and accepted), and that providing enough incentives makes people likely to buy instead of pirate (which is arguably why the DLC-based model came into being. Yay! :p). Then there is the lesson Ubi took from it, "If you say it isn't DRM, people will believe you". Hopefully Ubi was wrong, but I am starting to doubt it.
But what I very rarely see is anyone proposing a realistic option. THAT is why I always make it a point to say that I like Steam or the EA DLC model. Those methods seem to be effective and accepted, and (in my opinion), they don't hinder the user as much as other models. Admittedly, I don't care about resale and don't live in a region with distribution-hell (most of the time). But, c'est la vie.
Hopefully this won't double-post, and will just append.
It is pointless quibbling to discuss what we are actually suppose to be boycotting? :p
And yes, in a perfect world, everyone would perfectly define what they are arguing about so that the other side could respond on a point-by-point basis. Hell, we would make powerpoint presentations (with no animations, so they can be turned into pdfs) and share them, this way it is perfectly clear what we are against and what we are for. Also, unicorns would exist, and there would be a Ryan Reynolds in every bedroom.
In the real world, people just say they are against DRM :p. And certain actors have lawyers who know how to file restraining orders.

When you're spending the bulk of your time on edge cases while ignoring the core aspects where there's very little disagreement, then yes, yes it is.

I'll refrain from adressing that post of yours Gundato. Going over it in detail It wouldn't do anybody any good (not to mention people are probably bored out of their minds with our shit by now) and i agree with you on one thing, this thread was defnitely derailed by someone right from the get go in order to try to dismiss and ridicule the event in question (kinda like what militants usually do, wouldn't you say ?). Anyway, I ended up taking the bait and contributing to derail the thread even more, true, my bad.
And i just can't wrap my head around your 'attacks' thing. Every single thread, case in point - this one, even remotely related to DRM and there you are with snide remarks, whimsical labels, and ridiculing other people's views and opinons any way you can (mostly really bad analogies :p). But when someone tells you frontally without any bs what they think of how (badly) you adress the issues, and BAM!, attack. Weird...
Anyway, I sincerely wish you an happy International Day Against DRM.

*off*
http://gog.com/upload/images/2010/04/dd9dd4f7fd816abbca20f9bf42ce09a1e9c0329b.jpg

I've already explained why that is false. It's not very restrictive seeing how not many people sell the games they buy, especially for the PC, less so if they are buying classic games, but it still infringes on my right to resell, hence it is DRM.
DRM is not evil, or necessarily restrictive, and there are plenty of things I can think of that would ruin a game experience worse without being able to be called DRM in any way shape or form, at least not while sticking to DRM's literal definition of Digital Rights Management.
Example - MMO model - company allows anyone to download game software for free, but keeps game data on a server, only allowing people who buy an account access to the server.
The can not legitimately be described as DRM, but in a single player game it is rather restrictive. The actual software is free, and you can copy it, give it to someone else, you can even modify it to make it work without the account if you do it for yourself, although this would involve accessing the game server to see what's missing so you'd need to buy an account to do that legitimately anyway, so long as the software is actually available for free. If you actually have to buy it, then there is a whole different issue of being sold an incomplete product, etc.
That is only one example of something that ISN'T DRM that is at least as bad, if not worse for the consumer than most models. (note that Ubi's model isn't quite the same as this one, and still is DRM)

Nope, its merely a custom contract, DRM means digital management (read: enforcement) of rights. Nothing practically stops you from selling the game, except its not legal to do so. But thats nothing related to DRM, just as its illegal to go over to your neighbour and whack him with a baseball-bat. He might not let you in if he knows your intent, but even if he locks the door as protection its no form of DRM.Wow, you got that totally wrong, having the product in your hands (the game) and not being able to use it because of a (digital) system that requires you to identify yourself to prove your rights is practically the definition of DRM.

The problem is, DRM itself is defined as the edge cases, really.
Edge Case 1: GoG. At the very least, GoG does not allow the resale of games. Do we consider that a part of DRM? If so, do we care about that?
Edge Case 2: The disc check/copy-protection. Do we consider that part of DRM? If so, do we care about that?
And so forth.
The big problem with DRM is that, as person with skeletony avatar has been saying (I like him :p), DRM in and of itself is not evil. So if you say "No DRM" outright, you are going to open a can of worms.
Let's say you are like some of the people in this thread and don't think Steam is a DRM-model in and of itself. So your group makes a very public boycott of all DRM, then half the group buys every Steam game on sale. Remind you of L4D2 or MW2? :p
THAT is why we need to either define what DRM counts as (for the purpose of saying it is all ebil and should be burned at the stake and all that), or we figure out what aspects of DRM we don't like (and let's not break this down into intent. Let's stick to the actual things like authentications and the like).

Namur: gog in itself as a platform is 100% DRM free, gog's catalogue is 100% DRM free.
Orryyrro: I've already explained why that is false. It's not very restrictive seeing how not many people sell the games they buy, especially for the PC, less so if they are buying classic games, but it still infringes on my right to resell, hence it is DRM.
Npl: Nope, its merely a custom contract, DRM means digital management (read: enforcement) of rights. Nothing practically stops you from selling the game, except its not legal to do so. But thats nothing related to DRM, just as its illegal to go over to your neighbour and whack him with a baseball-bat. He might not let you in if he knows your intent, but even if he locks the door as protection its no form of DRM.
Except I have the legal RIGHT to resell media, as entitled by Canadian LAW. DRM isn't the Digital Management of Rights, it is the Management of Digital Rights, otherwise the D and the M would be grouped together and it would be DMR or RDM. It has nothing to do with HOW it enforces rights, in fact, if all it does is enforce rights it is not DRM, it is when it CHANGES your RIGHTS that it becomes DRM, Managing your Digital Rights so to speak.
Npl:Wow, you got that totally wrong, having the product in your hands (the game) and not being able to use it because of a (digital) system that requires you to identify yourself to prove your rights is practically the definition of DRM.
And no, DRM has nothing to do with proving your rights, it has to do with changing them, if it was proving them it would be Digital Rights Verification, or Proof of Digital Rights, Management does not prove a company exists, it runs the company. If it isn't changing your rights, it isn't managing them.
EDIT: Wish the quoting system worked better.

It isn't called MDR because when you drop the of you rearrange to words to maintain the meaning, Management Digital Rights doesn't make sense, Digital Rights Management carries the same meaning.
And to gog not being under Canadian law, not quite, they are selling to Canada, in order to do so they have to insure I am able to do everything I am legally entitled to do, this wouldn't be the case if I had to go to Poland to buy the games, BUT I buy them in Canada.
And yes, DRM technology is what you describe, but only if said technology actually affects what you have the right to do. And, DRM is more than just technology.

So many opinions presented as facts. So many countries applying their definitions of DRM to other countries. So much hostility, so much name calling. I must join Namur ( and probably the majority of folks here ) in saying GOG meets all of my requirements for DRM free. I have found no other distribution service that compares.
I consider the "no resale" to be contractual since it was explained before I was allowed to create an account and was easily recognized as a publisher requirement. If you must have that, buy from eBay. It is much the same as agreeing that any patents I may obtain will be the property of my employer. . . I knew it going in and found it to be acceptable.
Logging in is a network security function and has nothing to do with me playing games. I logged on to my personal computers this morning, that had no affect on my game play as well. Feel free to think otherwise and don't fault me for not agreeing with you.

I didn't say I had to have the ability to resell, I said that it would count as DRM in some countries. I also didn't say DRM was bad. Restricted game-play due to DRM is bad, but I have no problem with the concept of it.(granted, it won't stop piracy without being restrictive)
But I have absolutely no problem with the brand of DRM gog provides( and yes it is DRM) I also have no problem with Steam, which is DRM too.
I'm against this whole "International Day Against DRM"
Because if the DRM is bad enough on a game that it should warrant a day to not buy it, you shouldn't buy it to begin with, and if there is non-restrictive DRM on a game that you hardly even notice it, then you shouldn't have a problem buying the game ever. In fact, buying non-restrictive games, and passing over the ones that have insane restrictions is exactly what has to be done if companies are ever going to realise how to treat consumers properly.