There doesn't sound like a big convenience difference between downloading an installer on GOG and downloading an installer on Steam. And with the GOG games all I have to do is click on an icon on my desktop to play it... far, far easier than having to figure out how to get the game to run on an offline PC.

However, GOG is working on a client which sounds like it may appeal to those who are used to the way Steam handles PC game delivery.

There's only thing I'd want from a client though, and that's for it to be able to notify me which installers have been updated with a changelog, so that I can choose if I want to download them since my bandwidth is slow and expensive. Since I tend to store the installers encrypted on removable hard drives, the client would have to have another means of knowing which installers I have without being able to access them directly - kind of like GOG's website already does - although the update notifications need to be improved. So for me, the website is the client, and it just needs to be improved by having update notifications that are more specific as to what has been updated.

It has little to do with brainwashing. Even DRM-free advocates argue on the definition of DRM. It's a complex issue, and it needs to be explained clearly for others to understand. It's not easy to find such explanations, so naturally people don't understand the benefits.

Unfortunately many people who think they know something tend to treat those who don't understand it as stupid or as enemies, and therefore either don't care to explain or, if they do, do it in such a way that they antagonise the other side. Other people just don't care enough to try to explain. To get the public in general to understand DRM-free, there's need for mass advertising for it. It won't happen otherwise.

Sometimes it helps to say copy protection

People tend to be familiar with and understand what that means, and it's easy to understand the benefit of not having it.

Then you can go on to explain DRM is broader copy protection - beyond not just being able to make copies it include install limits and online verification requirements.

Of course then you might have to get into a deeper discussion about why Steam is (usually) DRM even though you can continue 'making copies' on different machines.

This has been said by others in various threads, and I'd agree with this "definition" of DRM: Your ability to play the game in the future is dependent upon the developer and/or publisher allowing you to do so.

Even copy protection can fall into this definition because if your copy protected media fails, and the game requires it to install and/or play the game, then you lose access to that game.

If I want to be really cynical, I'd go as far as calling DRM a form of blackmail. In other words, the developer/publisher is implying that if you don't continue to support them and they eventually go under, you'll lose access to all their games and/or other software you've bought from them. Sure, some people will say that the developers will patch out the DRM, but ask yourself this: if their business has just ground to a halt, are they going to be that sympathetic to their users?

Or they use stupidity, or rather ignoramce, as an excuse for their actions. That also happens a lot, just look at politicians.

It's the PC gaming equivalent of getting people to accept anamorphic widescreen in home video, I guess. For years, casual viewers would grouse about "those stupid black bars!" when they watched a DVD, not caring that they were seeing a superior image. Ultimately I think the spreading of widescreen TVs reduced some of this, although I'm sure it's still out there with a lot of people. I'm not sure how you would get people to bite on DRM-free as a desired feature unless some kind of unfortunate disaster with Steam or one of the other required clients occurs.

When you buy a book what you have is a Physical "Licensed copy of a licensed copyright work". You have the right to sell, privately lend or destroy that Licensed Copy.
Due to obscurity on how the rules apply to software, companies appended the "Licensed copy of a licensed copyright work" laws with their own License and added extra clauses such as non-transfer and such like.
A recent court case Oracle Vs Usedsoft, those obscurities where scrutinised and new laws drawn up in the US and EU.

An owner of a software License now has the same rights as an owner of a book.

Unfortunately VALVe has cast doubt whether games are software, and should be considered Multimedia Interactive Products, thus putting them back in the gray area.

Fair enough. It's not just VALVe, though. GoG does the exact same thing, as does every other digital distribution platform. Once it's redeemed to your account, it's yours. Non-transferable.

I think barring some sort of catastrophe with Steam and people losing access to their games, there probably does need to be some sort of large-scale push to market and advertise what the DRM-free movement means. It seems like EFF was doing a bit of this but now seems to be more focused on issues of privacy and government oversight (which is understandable as it is probably a more important issue). HumbleBundle of course was also a huge avenue for people to become familiar with DRM-Free, but they too have shifted their priorities. It does seem like GOG right now is carrying the torch.

Well I guess that is kind of the crux of why people don't care about Steam's DRM'd games. For the majority of users so far, it has not really affected their ability to use their games in a manner similar to something which is DRM-Free (other than mandatory use of their client which Valve has very successfully marketed as an added-benefit community portal), and they either don't care or don't realize that Valve and their publishers hold a leash on their games and there is no guarantee that they will be there or accessible tomorrow.

I guess it's all a bit similar to how people are so lax about computer and login security. They don't really care and prefer the convenient way until something obviously horrible happens and they realize they need to get some education on the topic and practice better security habits. It's also why the best malware are the ones that are undetectable or trick the user into buying into the added benefit it provides and instills a false sense of security.

There are many games where especially for multi player mode, a central, closed, dedicated server from the publisher is needed (because for example part of the game logic resides there or because of matchmaking, achievements, ranks, ...). Now one could argue that technical this is not strictly necessary and many of these features could also be optional, if only the software would have been programmed differently.

So, can a certain programming style (distributed computing and not giving all the parts to the customer) be regarded as DRM.

Especially if you go to cloud based computing and the client/customer has not really a running version on his computer anymore but just a kind of terminal.

Would all this be DRM even if nothing special has been done to prevent the user from accessing and playing the game?

And the more important question, what do people want to do against it, except not buying at all.

I guess for these reasons many multiplayer games will never, ever come to GOG and GOG will forever remain in the shadow of Steam who is just a great service for multiplayers.

(Or GOG just defines DRM differently in the case of multiplayer servers. They might even add to the confusion.)

No, the delivery part does not include DRM. If it would, then bringing a vacuum cleaner home from a store, or ordering something to your home address, would be considered as "DRM". After all, you can't just take any vacuum cleaner from a store and bring it home, without paying anything or showing a proof of purchase.

DRM is considered only after the goods have been delivered to you. In the case of digital software, it means after you have downloaded the software. It is also important to make a distinction between software and a service.

Is this going to be another "electricity is DRM, because your PC doesn't run without it!" kind of argument?

You are now talking about the service, not the software. As I said, one needs to make a distinction between a service, and the software (and the license to use the software). They are not the same thing, and different legislation applies to each.

After you have received your game (ie. downloaded the game installer files to your PC), there is no DRM for the software. The fact that GOG offers a free-of-charge service on top of that for you to re-download the software as many times as you want, has nothing to do with that. GOG could just as well not offer such a service, but you could only download your game once when you purchase it. The game (software) would still be DRM-free.

Who says that resale is a legal right? For digital products afaik it's not. The usual reason is that digital products do not degrade over time and therefore the publisher could theoretically always only sell a single copy (whether this makes sense or not...).

While the license of GOG cleary forbids resales it does not really hinder you in reselling (the confirmation email together with the downloaded installer). Nothing in the GOG account physically restricts you in the rights you actually have - if we assume for the moment that reselling is not part of your rights. And I think it isn't. The license is very specific in this regard.

And in the same way, if resellings would be legal, you would just make a contract with someone and send him the downloaded installer on a data storage medium or make it available to the buyer in any other form, then you also send him the email you got as proof of purchase and attach some writing that you transfer your rights to this other person and additionally delete all downloaded copies of the installer.

From all this one can already see that reselling without DRM requires a lot of trust. Actually I would say that reselling practically would require some DRM and is almost impossible without DRM.

So if there is no reselling this is rather a sign of a lack of DRM than a sign of DRM.

I don't need a username and a password to buy a vacuum cleaner. The vacuum cleaner isn't permanently tied to a username and password. I can sell the vacuum cleaner if I so desire.

Whether you agree or not, there is DRM on the delivery.

Reselling is legally forbiden by GOG but not enforced in any way. What you mean is transfer of the game from one account to another which could be seen as additional service. You don't need that transfer to sell a game on GOG, just take it an sell it. Just say you sold all your games to me. Then they are mine, and I don't really care where I get the identical installers from, you, someone else, a torrent or a GOG account.

The game download is tied to an account, so the original buyer must have an account to download them, but after he downloaded them, he can do whatever he wants with them, as long as he operates within his rights.

To me the term digital rights management contains that your are physically forced to a certain behavior, not only that you have only certain rights.

One thing is to have restricted rights and the other thing is to have a physical restriction of these rights.