tacossmellgood: Because Steam serves the same ends as DRM, albeit in a different form, it is essentially DRM.
I think the real issue here is that the forms of DRM, and therefore the definition of DRM is expanding.
first of all, let's start with a random definition, let's say the first two sentences on wikipedia, it says that drm "...is a generic term for access control technologies that can be used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders and individuals to limit the usage of digital content and devices. The term is used to describe any technology that inhibits uses of digital content not desired or intended by the content provider."
that covers steam.
follow up on the wiki sources if you so wish.
however, even if you argue that you would rather use a narrower term that is favored by publishers, then you can still make a case for steam being a DRM substitute.
Whatever way you say it, the effect of steam is make things tied to the platform (in it's intended usage), and thereby control access to you games.
jimthev: This is a perfectly fine technical definition. The problem is that you immediately abandon it.
Your stated definition requires it to be a technology that limits the *usage*. You can *use* some Steam games wherever you want by copying off the game. Some will run completely without Steam. Get the game, delete Steam and they run. There for the generic "Steam" isn't a DRM for those games whatsoever since it doesn't even exist at *use* time. Extending a the common definition of use to include acquisition is a slippery slope that leads to the assimilation of GOG in the consequences.
Personally I don't know what the more restrictive definition could be that you speak of nor do I know how I would use it (assuming the you is not the generic third person, in which case I don't know how one would use it).
With a technical definition you can throw in stuff like "if it looks like it, it is it" those just don't work Feeling and appearance just don't count at that level. Intent and arbitrary assertions are irrelevant when talking at that level.
Now, my personal proffered definition would be a more 'general use one' (something I'd use when talking to an outside CEO) and that one would include the entire process and how a users rights are being limited. This is not the exact technical definition although many in this thread are using it or a milder version of it. Rarely is anybody here using that technical definition and understanding the consequences of using it. Mostly it is just a "wave your hands" discussion (which is fine as far as it goes and expected in an open forum).
Anyhow I've exceeded my personal allotment of general definition time on this concept and will step aside. Anybody on the boarder of whatever (I don't have a good word for it) has now seen the ideas, others know it, never will or *know* that I'm an idiot (which isn't out of the question, but probably not for the reasons one would believe).
you are splitting hairs. no definition of "DRM" can be all-inclusive in such an ever-changing digital landscape.
furthermore, i never abandoned anything. If you use steam as intended, you cannot delete it and run your games, period.
if you want to have a micromanaged dispute about an obtuse concept like "DRM," then you cannot just conveniently forget that steam is intended to be run in the background at all times.
the bottom line is, you know how steam works, i know how steam works, and we both know that it is intended to structure the usage of your games.
you can't structure without placing limits on usage, if you hadn't already figured that out.
if you are circumventing steam by deleting files and running games without the client, then you are using it outside of its intended form.