Then why on Earth post in this thread unless you are deliberately looking to get into said discussion? Or somehow think it is possible to get in the last word.

Dropping the stance also means they loose niche status. There are people that have made themselves by being the only one's crazy enough to cater to a small demographic. Could they profit more by going main stream now that they are established? Maybe, but I'd rather them not.

When it comes to them changing stance and selling new games thats not the same thing. What DRM is, is somewhat loosely defined, but thats a far cry away from the highly subjective term "old," that everyone defines personally based on their own age and life experiences. Selling Old games as a policy is ultimately untenable.

They also haven't lost any power to provide old games just by selling new games. However, by removing the DRM-free stance they would become just another seller, and they, along with us, loose the power to negotiate for more DRM-free games. One of the biggest avenues for us as customers to tell developers and publishers we want DRM free would evaporate with that stance change. Would that make them more money than they are making now? Maybe, but I'd rather them not.

Had the modern ideas, and the means existed implement them existed in the 90's, I'm quite confident we would have had all this modern stuff in the 90's

Cory Doctorow has a very good talk about digital freedom, DRM and lot's of related stuff:
"The coming war on general computing": http://youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg

There he calls copy protection - DRM 0.9x. Even if it wasn't called DRM it was the same idea - limiting ways of how the digital content can be used - i.e. restricting user's freedom. Watch the whole thing - it's very insightful.

DO NOT misquote me.

What? Where?

Whoops, sorry, I read that on my phone in a hurry and misread it as you insinuating that I was advocating piracy. I apologize.

But nowadays we just like to use the acronym DRM for everything that resembles the concept, even things from the past. It's more convenient and simplifies the discussion.

Problem is, it is oversimplifying the discussion IMHO.
DRM is a much harsher Concept than CD-keys or tables in a manual. Those cannot be taken from you. Maybe with a version update which invalidates your key, but I've never heard of anything like that except in any case of piracy, where your key got leaked.
With DRM your rights can be revoked anytime you have a connection to the Internet.

Blu-ray had some DRM in the form of "managed copy" feature (don't know if managed copy was ever implemented). But the managed copy would have required an on-line connection to work. The rest of Blu-Ray "features" is simple copy protection.

There never was any DRMs nor copy protection on MP3, it's not technically possible. If you mean iTune's Fairplay for audio files or WMA's DRMs then both required online connection to validate the license.

Well peoples call tomatoes and eggplants "vegetables" even thought they never were and never will be.

DRM can have many forms. Requiring validation with some on-line server is just one example. DRM can involve off-line encryption, hidden keys and all kind of stuff up to rootkits. So no point in arguing really. CD keys are just a form of validating the copy, they are usually asked once during installation, and if you can use that key to make other installations - it's not drastic.

For example HDCP would protect copying of Blu-rays with standalone Blu-Ray recorders without any required online connection. Still I would call it DRM. So requiring an online connection as defining feature for DRM seems to overly restrict the definition. Funny enough Wikipedia defines HDCP as digital copy protection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-bandwidth_Digital_Content_Protection

The "online" component is more a side effect rather than the "defining feature", the defining feature is the "management" part.

Is it something immutable, something that is decided once that the right owner/distributor can't alter/change after purchase.

Or is it something where the right owner/distributor keep full control over and can change/alter when needed.

If every time you install a game it display a code that you must sent via postal mail to the publisher and then receive in return (via postal mail again) another code that you must input before you can start the game. It's DRM even thought there is no "online" part.

On the other side buying a game on GoG, there is definitely an "online authentication" part (need to login, etc...) but once you have downloaded the installer you have full control over it and there is nothing the right owner or GoG can do about it.