Son of a *****! /sigh

If the Wikipedia-definitions are to believed, disc-based copy protection systems (like the good old CSS for DVD movies) are also DRM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_protection

Maybe people, who by "DRM" mean only "DRM-methods which require online authentication", should use a separate term like "online DRM".

Under the DRM article's "computer games" section they only list: Limited install activations, Persistent online authentication, and Software tampering as DRM.

Though, to be fair, Wikipedia can't even agree with itself on a single page, let alone from page to page. It's a terrible source for a polemic inducing topic such as DRM.

We didn't used to say DRM way back when, we used to call it "copy protection". DRM as a term definitely showed up around the time SecuROM and Starforce transitioned over to offering activation services.

The question is who controls access to the game. In all newer DRMs it's a third party like Adobe for ebooks, .... The more old style copy protection variant is just a piece of hardware whose ownership decides who controls the game. From a point of ownership the latter method is probably much better.

Every time a person uses wikipedia as a source a cat dies.

Seriously though, disc-checks do not manage your access to the data after the sale. As long as you possess the disc you have access. DRM means the company can control the product after the sale. Hence copy protection versus DRM, two different things. A DVD movie has DRM on it according to your definition.

And I have to agree with some people here, disc checks have given me more problems than DRM has. Splinter Cell Chaos Theory, Crysis and FEAR were particularly bad ones in my experience. Never had a problem with Risen, to be fair.

The problem with DRM for me has NEVER been ease of use though, DRM has never caused me a problem. The issue with DRM for me as always been longevity, making sure I can use the game when the company is gone or ends support.

I always crack my retail purchases, unfortunately the copy protection still gets installed but it's never called.

Finally!

Gamersgate has now revised their copy of Risen from Tages to DRM Free.

http://www.gamersgate.com/DD-RISEN/risen

Great news, thanks for sharing!

DRM: Digital Rights Management.

Game has disc-check, I install it and try to play it without the disc, I can't. It is managing the rights to my game by saying I must have the disc in to access it.
Disc-checks are a form of DRM.

It's all DRM.

The publisher is managing THEIR digital rights. It doesn't matter how they choose to or do implement this. From disc checks that protect their digital rights by limiting who gets to play, to online activations and hardware checks to whatever.

It is all DRM. It is all the publisher managing their digital rights, one way or another.

All the invented definitions and arguments people come up with are just semantics. When you think about it, who gets to define this term anyway? The person who first coined it? Can we check with them? Do we even know who that person is today?

When the term begins to appear in dictionaries I guess we can refer to them for clarification although they will have created the definition themselves.

In any case, anything the publisher does to manage their digital rights is DRM isn't it? In this case, they are employing some form of digital rights management.

I think where people get split up on this is further breaking down the term and looking at what exactly is meant by digital here. Does it mean digital means to control rights? Does it mean the rights are somehow digital? Doesn't it actually just refer to the media itself being digital? I think the latter makes most sense. It could just as easily have been called Media Rights Management and once you look at that term suddenly it doesn't seem like any stretch to include copy protection schemes does it?

Actually, looking at that last bit I just wrote makes me think again. Maybe it is valid to consider copy protection schemes (disc checks) as a form of Media Rights Management where it manages the use of physical media. Then on the other hand, we could say Digital Rights Management handles the domain of digital media in which case disc checks don't apply if we are talking strictly online digital media acquisition.

This little exercise makes me see how both sides tend to view this argument but leaves me not really caring what the definition is in the end. It's all inconvenient in one way or another. This would be a little easier to live with if it actually worked I guess. The maddening thing is the way in which it penalizes good paying customers while the pirates of the world set sail with their free booty every damned time anyway. So what's the point?

Sorry guys. I waffle so well sometimes I wonder if I missed my calling in life and should have been a politician!

Nope.

But keep saying that, maybe it will become true if you wish hard enough.

I honestly don't care what you call it. Disc checks are archaic and should be done already. They are one of the reason I'm done with retail. Disc checks have caused me more trouble in 2009 then Steam (or any other non-disc-check-DRM), when I was using both.

I'm going to agree here. How would it not be some basic form of DRM? I install the game on 12 computers across the country. Can it be played on all 12 computers? Not unless I fly from city to city with the disc and then even only one could be run at a time. Now do the same with a GOG game. Would all 12 systems run and at the same time? Sure it would. That sound a lot like the kind of dynamic someone is trying to create using DRM. Exercising a right to prevent you from from running multiple copies without paying for it. Rights have been managed using some kind of digital tech. Rights Managed Digitally.

I bought one PC game a few years ago. I installed it, it checked the disc and told me the disc I paid for was a copy and refused to play because it didn't like my drive. I didn't end up playing the game until a few months ago when I rebought it here.

I would also agree with the sentiment that even it its not, its still annoying. When it works, and when it doesn't

I agree with everything you just said but that doesn't make them DRM.

It's somewhat baffling to me that people need to keep arguing about "is it DRM, is it not DRM". These arguments pop up again and again, are never resolved, and tend to drag.

A disc check remains a disc check regardless of the label you apply, and online activations remain online activations regardless of the label you apply. If this system in place is not one you approve of, don't open your wallet.