These restrictions are not unique to Japan. We just see them the most as we have the most restrictions on Steam.

But ones that you'll see regardless of region are when games have delayed releases. At one point, you used to get access to a game at the same time as the region the game was gifted from.

Valve changed that a while ago. So now, if the game isn't released in your region yet -- and is being released in your region -- you won't get access to it until that date (even if you imported a retail copy of a Steamworks game). The most recent example of that is with Front Mission where people in parts of Europe have to wait until October 8 before the game will unlock/install.

If the game isn't being released in your region at all, it won't unlock until it's released in all regions where it's being sold. This most notably happened with Dragon Age Origins where support were assuring people who had the game gifted from (or who had purchased the game in) the US that it would unlock even in Japan at the same time it did for the US.

It didn't. Support then started offering refunds and removing the game from affected accounts only for it to then unlock a few days later follow it's release in the UK (which was the last region for the game to be unlocked in).

As for retail restrictions, these are mainly seen in Russia, Thailand and Hong Kong where retail versions of Valve games (and others) cannot be played outside of their respective regions even once activated on Steam.

So far, Japan has not been that unfortunate. We just tend to need access to US based VPN in order to install the few IP restricted games. The most notable of those being MW2 (and it's possible, but not confirmed) that such IP blocking may have been dumped after all the backlash and problems it caused -- Valve for example, having to then issue Military specific keys so troops based in Okinawa, etc., could install/activate the game off base.

It also didn't stop the rest of us in Japan activating the game (a lot of the importers simply provided access to VPNs in the end for activation for those who couldn't find one themselves).

So in short, it's a bloody mess.
That's interesting as one of the users here, who was from the UK, also moved to Japan and was able to get Valve to lock his IP to displaying the UK store so he could use his UK credit card.

But it's entirely possible they stopped doing that. I simply resort to having friends in other parts of world gift games when they aren't available here now. It tends to work *if* you wait until after release, but for pre-orders, it's always a gamble.

No, it is not. DRM is all about managing the use of digital media (the "digital" in "Digital Rights Management"), not preventing the copying of physical media. Copy protection is all about controlling the physical media, nothing else. It is a subtle difference, but it is the clear difference between DRM and copy protection. People often lump them together (I've done it myself), but that doesn't make it accurate.

All copy protection is DRM but not all DRM is copy protection:)

Copy protection is generally considered a subset of DRM. There are, however, other kinds.

Perhaps people might want to look up what DRM means to various people and reference that rather than just 'knowing' what it means. Depending on the audience and context, "DRM" can mean any of the definitions people are using, so saying that it has a definite meaning and everybody else is wrong is, at best, naive. Context is king.

The problem is most of the references have just as much contention as this thread (like Wikipedia) and more traditional style references don't list it as a topic at all or have a very bad article on it.

I think the point was that you were asking permission over and over again to play your games.

Copying is a right according to law (distribution of those copies is not). How is stopping the copy not managing a right?

Copy protection prevents all copies, not just illegal ones, you have a right to copy material you own for personal use, it's DRM.

Yes, you got it right. If it is designed to prevent copying of digital media, it is designed to protect digital copyrights. In other words, it is DRM.

Which means that everything from a StarForce/Securom disc check to Steam is DRM, and the definition even covers stuff like the codewheels that came with the old Monkey Island games.

The fact is: this is a fucking oxymoron imho.

Too many people to reply to, so no quotes, sorry.

Copy protection pre-dates the concept of DRM by decades and has nothing whatsoever to do with it. All copy protection is designed to do is prevent unauthorized copying of physical media, not control the digital rights of a piece of software (i.e. the how when and where you can use the digital content). Yes, you do have the right to make copies of your disk (depending on your local laws), but that right has nothing at all to do with your rights to use the digital media on that disk, as defined by the EULA and the laws that apply to it. These are key distinctions that most people seem to ignore when they lump copy protection into the same basket as DRM. DRM only applies to the non-physical aspect of digital media, copy protection only applies to the physical aspect and the two never shall meet.

It predates the definition, not the concept. Copying is a use, it's pretty much all computers do.

Hmm, I don't understand, if you are prevent unauthorized copying (of physical media, so copying over the internet is okay?) this seems like partly controlling the digital rights of a piece of software (i.e. the how when and where you can use the digital content)?

So, I would go for: copyright is a subset of DRM.

But maybe there is something to it. Maybe lets talk about RM (Rights Management) and skip the D.

So I would say, Steam is kind of Rights Management.

You miss the point. Copy protection doesn't just apply to digital media, it applies to all physical media, hence why it is not a form of DRM. Technically, the anti-counterfeiting measures used by all countries for their currency is a form of copy protection; your signature on a legal document is technically a form of copy protection, as are watermarks (both digital and physical) and official seals, but you would never consider any of them DRM.

I think people are confusing the basic concept of legal "rights" with what DRM considers "rights". Making a copy of a game, for example, may be a legal right in your area, but that has nothing to do with DRM. DRM is only concerned about the usage rights as defined in the EULA of that game and enforcing that, nothing more. DRM won't stop you from making multiple copies of the game disk, but it might prevent from installing it on multiple computers. Copy protection won't stop you from installing a game on multiple computers, but it might stop from making multiple copies of the disk. They are two separate, but equally annoying, aspects of intellectual property protection. Because they often seem to be applied to software in tandem, they are often lumped together, but they are still completely separate entities.