Npl: Uhhh... stealing cars is a bit different than just grabbing some files while residing in your own 4 walls, dont you think?
If you want a car analogy, DRM would be the police controlling your papers. Even if you own the car you arent allowed to use it unless you have insurance and a driver-license, both which can be controlled or rewoked at any time. Pesky Car DRM, you cant even run over people without losing the right to drive your own car!!!
Good protection systems are hard to on an open plattform like the PC.

Gundato: Because if wiki says it, it must be true :p
Seriously, the term is a catch-all. It tends to be used to refer to things like activation models and the like because people prefer to say they hate all DRM.
Using the blurb you yourself copied: "it can also refer to restrictions associated with specific instances of digital works or devices". What do serials and disc-checks restrict? :p

de99ial: Yes stealing the car is different but if You could without any cost copy a car from f.e. Your uncle - would You buy it?

Gundato: Because if wiki says it, it must be true :p
Seriously, the term is a catch-all. It tends to be used to refer to things like activation models and the like because people prefer to say they hate all DRM.
Using the blurb you yourself copied: "it can also refer to restrictions associated with specific instances of digital works or devices". What do serials and disc-checks restrict? :p

de99ial: But what if i want to install the game on computer without internet acess?

de99ial: ... I just decide not to buy and not to play with those games (some titles are really hard to resist - but i swear to myself).
What do You think about it?

cogadh: Wow, we haven't had this discussion before now...
DRM itself as a concept is not bad, its the execution of that concept that can be bad. There is nothing inherently wrong with a company protecting its property, but when that "protection" interferes with the legitimate customers rights or ability to use a product, but does nothing to stop the illegitimate user of a product, then it becomes bad. The problem is, there are no protections out there that can stop the illegitimate use of a product, but there are plenty of them that will restrict legitimate customers. Disk checks, serial keys, etc. are all relatively non-invasive forms of DRM and they really don't do anything that will interfere with your gameplay, but at the same time, they are probably the easiest form of DRM to crack, hence why the publishers have moved on to more invasive forms of DRM, like the latest form of SecuROM and Ubisoft's "DRM that is not DRM". The problem is, even these forms of DRM are easy to crack; maybe slightly harder that cracking a serial code, but still easy enough that a game can be cracked within 24 hours of its release date (24 hours before or after release date, that is).
The only truly effective "DRM" is to create products that the people are willing and happy to pay for and to sell those products at a reasonable price. GOG has already figured this out, slowly the publishers (well, some of them) are also starting to figure this out, eventually all of them will get it or they will lose business, as I'm sure Ubisoft is soon to learn.

Gremmi: I agree - thats why i said we going offtopic here. The topic is about DRM not piracy.
Dond misunderstand me - im not pirate and i think it is a bad thing.
Like i said before - when im buying a legal copy im doing that not for using cracks. When i buy f.e. book i like keep it on na shelf and back to it when id like it. Not when autor will give me permission.
About term "DRM" - i disagree about throwing all kind of anti-piracy technology to this term, although i sick of pintless argue about that so lets make it clear.
DRM in meaning latest version of them.
Is it OK with You?

cogadh: Wow, we haven't had this discussion before now...
DRM itself as a concept is not bad, its the execution of that concept that can be bad. There is nothing inherently wrong with a company protecting its property, but when that "protection" interferes with the legitimate customers rights or ability to use a product, but does nothing to stop the illegitimate user of a product, then it becomes bad. The problem is, there are no protections out there that can stop the illegitimate use of a product, but there are plenty of them that will restrict legitimate customers. Disk checks, serial keys, etc. are all relatively non-invasive forms of DRM and they really don't do anything that will interfere with your gameplay, but at the same time, they are probably the easiest form of DRM to crack, hence why the publishers have moved on to more invasive forms of DRM, like the latest form of SecuROM and Ubisoft's "DRM that is not DRM". The problem is, even these forms of DRM are easy to crack; maybe slightly harder that cracking a serial code, but still easy enough that a game can be cracked within 24 hours of its release date (24 hours before or after release date, that is).
The only truly effective "DRM" is to create products that the people are willing and happy to pay for and to sell those products at a reasonable price. GOG has already figured this out, slowly the publishers (well, some of them) are also starting to figure this out, eventually all of them will get it or they will lose business, as I'm sure Ubisoft is soon to learn.

Gundato: While I mostly agree with you, I feel the need to just append/restate the following:
DRM is not meant to stop piracy. It is meant to minimize it. Pretty much any DRM will stop "the idiots" from pirating, forcing them to buy. Beyond that, it is a matter of balancing between stopping piracy and not hurting the user.
GoG has a good model, but that model might not work so well for a new release. People are more likely to put down 7 or 10 bucks for some shiny than they are to put down 50 or 60 bucks. So to go with the "give them shinies that make them want to buy it" angle, you need a lot more to sway the same potential pirate.
So yeah, it is just a matter of finding a balance. Enough DRM to stop potential pirates, but not enough to stop potential buyers.

Gundato: GoG has a good model, but that model might not work so well for a new release.

cogadh: The problem is, as I said before, creating a product that people want to buy, then selling at a reasonable price. 50 to 60 bucks is not a reasonable price for any game, new or otherwise, especially in the current economy. With games at those prices, "the idiots" are far more likely to find out about and resort to casual piracy than they would if games were priced in the 20 to 40 dollar range. As long as game companies continue to push out crappy games at unreasonable prices, then saddle them with invasive DRM, people are going to find ways to pirate them. Make better games and drop the prices, not only will they sell more, but that DRM that is just there to stop the casual pirate is no longer necessary.

de99ial: It is true that to buy a new product it has to be shiny. But from the other side all kind restrictions make that shiny shine less - so for some potential customer it works as a negative factor.
I think it is not a matter a price but balance between price and quality. If the product is good and with good price it will sell. If product is good but costs too much - it wont sell. And bad product even for low price wont sell at all.
Second thing - i disagree with that "if pirate cant steal he will be forced to buy it". When You go to the mall and there are free samples Yopu just take it - without thinking. But when You have to pay for smth You starting to think. Pirates mainly take it because its "for free" - without that free download possibility they will resign NOT buy.
I think that developer are going in bad directions. I think that if developer in moment of release new title would offer various possibilities they would make more money.
F.e. developer release a new shooter. So it give:
1. Download version - for low price. 10 USD for example. But it is one time instalation, full of DRM and other kind restrictions, without box, instructions and other shiny stuff.
2. AND box version - full of stuff, without DRM last version (internet connection not requaried), shiny and awesome looking for 40 USD.
Now each customer may choose between those two possibilities. If he want test, one play only - he buys a download version. Plays and after everything just delete. Developer got the money for cheap version (i think servers and soft for that stuff would be chaper than implementation DRMs). If someone wants a game for collection - he buys a BOX version, with guarantee that it will work after 10 years no matter what (even if DRM servers were disabled). Best thing of that situation is that every one that choose a download may decide for ma BOX after finishing game - if he says "Damn, that thing is great! I want that!"
Making money and user friendly policy.
Right now they choose worst wariant - expensive BOX with shitty DRMs.
Last but not least - i think that even GOG is for money. Not big for once but it has to work for itself. Look - new game is on shop - cost 40 bucks. Then it goes to a cheaper series - 20 bucks. After that it goes to a completely cheap series - 10 bucks, and at end goes to GOG - 5 bucks. On each level developer is making a money. Thats why it is so great.
Why they dont do it?

Gamerkought: Mass Effect 1 for the PC had a proper crack easily once the problem was found out. I highly doubt it made people go out and buy it. Instead, the pirates simply shrugged and looked for something else to download.