I also like to define terms but I see a certain ambiquity or subjetivity of the process. There are always more than one possible definitions. Do we decide democratically about the most commonly used version? Do we have to re-check every four years, because opinions could have changed? Are there some laws or some inner logic that we have to obey? Who is the highest instance? How do we deal with minority opinions?

I mostly try to avoid being dependent on terms and rather explain what I mean one more time. If I speak of definition as often as possible I try to mention that these are my definitions. Although I think that the difference between copy protection and DRM is quite natural and straightforward. Both terms just mean, what they describe.

Linguistics: it's not an exact science.

Seriously, this applies to every single word in every single language.

Very true.

Yet there are critical differences between a disc check and real DRM in the arena of corporate power. I think that needs to be respected by recognizing the two terms. Treating a disc check as the same thing weakens the understanding of the dangers of DRM.

If you care about that sort of thing anymore, anyway.