Maybe because its all attempting to do the exact same thing, keep one copy in one player's hands so that other people have no technical alternative, but to buy their own copy. Its ALL piracy prevention and DRM as you are presenting it isn't anything more than the Evolution of copy protection. Its not mind blowing at all that someone would go there, and is fine to say there were the "old ways," and now we have the "new ways," but then we need a third term

Copy protection + DRM = What?

Whatever label we can come up for that union is what I'm interested in avoiding, because some of that old fashion stuff (namely manual checks. ) are every bit as infuriating as the "new ways"

Yes, CD-Keys are different than on-line activation limits, which are different than disc authentications, which are different than say managed DLC content, but its trivial to look at all of them and think they the have a common denominator and a singular goal.

So far your argument has boils down to "that's just the way it is and anyone else that thinks different is being stupid/ignorant." I realize I'm putting words in your mouth at that point so I apologies for that, but I need someone to tell me what to call that common denominator, because then people can stop arguing semantics and start saying I'm anti-DRM and someone else can say I'm anti-DRM + anti-CP.

Is "piracy prevention," good enough, or would people sound silly saying they are against PP?

Oh, man, please... You don't know what's going on in your workplace? :P

For other parts of your post, I strongly agree. People forget that DRM Free doesn't mean it's EULA and license-free, so still you can do with it only what you are allowed to do. (legally, of course, because in fact nobody can stop you from doing whatever you want with it)

Oh man, I didn't get anything from what you've said, but let me explain it simple:

if you want to play with your friend online in whatever manner other than hot seat, every player has to own his copy (his own CD key) to keep it straight with EULA.

Doesn't matter who buys it to whom - one copy per player for online play in most cases.

You may want to change that, though. It's pretty misleading by suggesting the right of ownership.
Yeah, it's pretty f---d up, at least in Poland you can't even borrow a copy to your brother.

You can borrow music, movies, books, almost everything to your friends and relatives, but not software.

Yeah, it's misleading again. What they mean by that is you shouldn't share your account and games with anyone.

For all those that have spinning heads right now. Most licensing laws are still derived from a time of books and vinyl records. They were somewhat useable as the digital age was bound to a CD. But nowadays, with DD, it is highly confusing and contradictory.

Originally, the license was "bound" to the physical media. It also "moved" with it. Because you can transfer ownership of a CD, you could "transfer" ownership of the license (legally, "it followed the medium", as you cannout give or take a license). But how does that transmutes to the 100% digital "product"?

Eg, the license of a game cannot be bound to one "download". Because files aren't physical. Therefore, theoretically, if you own a GOG you can get it from where ever you want. But, (at least in Germany), getting a GOG I own of a torrent site is actually a crime. Because (again, in Germany) you aren't charged for the "piracy" but for getting software from an "obviously illegal source".

A very interesting question is, what of the license of GOGs sold by eg Atari (like their D&D box)? They use the same packaged software that is sold here. Hence you could argue you own a license for that GOG even if you didn't buy it here. That doesn't mean that you can activate a GOG here, because this site is as much a service as it is a "license vendor".

Obviously, retails and GOGs are a different license, because GOG is changing the game (even if it is only the new installer).But the question also remains, if I own a CD of a game and therefore the license, can I download the iso of the net?
It's actually pretty simple, you are the only one allowed to use the game. You can install it where ever you want, but you are the only one allowed to use the games.

I'm well aware that I may be splitting hairs here, but neither can any kind of DRM. Even MMOs get private servers where pirates can play, given a high enough popularity among the "right" people.

DRM is a digital means of managing your rights, or a way of managing your digital rights, eg. trying to stop you from spreading the game (or other media) and others from play your copy (maybe only at the same time as you do). Requiring unique keys for LAN-play may very well qualify depending on how tight or loose you draw the reins, as it does exactly that, it tries to limit what you can do. The EULA saying you're not allowed to use the same license in a LAN match is a completely different matter, as it doesn't actively try to stop you from doing so.

A CD-key is not copy protection as it doesn't limit the making of a copy, only the use of one, copy protection is not DRM as it does not not limit the use of a copy (if successfully made), only the making of one.

My view below:
The license is akin to saying "please don't cross this line", and perhaps even punish you afterwards if you do anyway, but not taking active measures to stop you.

Keys, DRM, and copy protections are akin to setting up a barricade of some sort (that may very well be bridged, perhaps with difficulty, it may be filled with traps), but not doing anything if you manage to cross the line despite the measures.

That part of polish doctrine that knows PCs not only from their grandchildren stories says YES.

You have right to make a backup copy. It doesn't mean you have to do the copy of your own disc (sometimes it's impossible because of copy protection or you don't have a CD ROM for example). You may do whatever you need to run the software.

Also, the backup copy can be made anytime you want. It would be absurd to require you to make a backup only when your original disc is broken, because obviously, you can't make a copy from a broken disc.

So, at least in theory, you may torrent the software you bought if you want, 100% legally here. I said in theory, because there are no single cases in court that would ever deal with that kind of story. The problem with torrents is that you not only download but also distribute it, and you don't have right to do so. It would be safer to download it from rapidshare, for example.

I don't know if you have that kind of rule in Germany, but in here, if you have right to do something, you also have right to do everything that is needed (not necessary, just needed) to do it without harming anybody.

Someone may say that downloading a crack for a game is illegal, so you aren't allowed to do that, but others would say - you can't make/use a copy without that crack, so you are free to use it.

It's all theory, because our IP act is from 1994 and it doesn't suit well for modern use.

Without checking right now, it was like this afaik: You can make as many "private copies" as you want. But you can't give them away and, now the kicker, you are not allowed to circumvent copy protection to do so. Obviously, Polish law is ahead in that case.

IIRC, the wording is that inaccurate, that actually modding a game is also illegal. (No altering of the code or something like that).

It doesn't really come from law directly, rather from jurisprudence.
You have right to make a backup copy so you are allowed to do anything that is needed to do so. If a disc is copy protected - crack it. If your backup copy would be used only by yourself, you are free to crack it.

Copy protection and DRM can't make your right given by law non-existent. Because in the way you deal with it in Germany, noone can use their rights in that case.

Look, I'm just a gamer who wanted to do one simple thing:play this game with a friend. I bought Two Worlds because I wanted to play it single player. I saw that it had coop, and I wanted to try it. I wanted to ensure that it worked and was fun before I bought another copy. Sort of a "coop demo". GOG ruled that this was not cool, not without 2 purchased keys, but then GOG would not let me purchase a second key. I would have. Two Worlds is known as one of the worst games around and before I put my "gamer reputation" on the line and made a case for others to buy it and install it on their own machines, for which I was again willing to buy 2 copies myself, I wanted to make sure that the game wouldn't screw me with a crappy co-op mode.

Ultimately, we would have bought as many copies of the game from GOG as there were people playing it. It's only 10 dollars per copy. GOG shot that idea down.

Again, while I can not lie to myself and agree that CD-Keys are not DRM, and I can not agree that a game with hard-coded DRM should be allowed on GOG (or that LAN play should involve internet access in any way), if GOG had simply allowed me to buy a second key with my account then I would have accepted it and moved on.

As it stands now, I can't get another CD key. GOG won't let me buy another, and as my friend isn't an idiot I can't get him to make a GOG account just to acquire a CD-Key from a site which claims to have no DRM. I'd never hear the end about the hypocrisy. GOG, I'd go out on a limb for you, but not when the limb is guaranteed to break and cause me harm, as it would be in this case.

Please clearly indicate on GOG game pages the requirement for a CD Key if a game should require one, and please provide official instructions (ie:not only in forum posts) as to how one goes about procuring a CD key. I don't want to have to deal with this ever again. I don't think I could take it.

So buying two copies of it yourself is fine, but your friend buying a copy is hypocrisy? I'm confused. If you want two people to play the game, you buy two copies. How is this so foreign to you?