Just illustrating the fact that laws are useless and impotent if they don't have public support. In cases where the number of people not in favor of said laws are vastly larger than those in favor of them, it would seem to me that there is a problem with the laws and not the people.

You want the Music company...or game company to compensate you when you 'lost the contents of your HDD'?

Why should they?  THEY didn't 'lose the contents', you did.

How is this any different from...'I did a clean-out and inadvertently chucked out my Music/game....that I owned/paid for...so I want the companies to replace them for me'?

The solution is simple...in BOTH instances...you kick yourself in the arse for being an idiot...and go out and buy it/them again....

Which is exactly whats wrong with the entire scenario, as you should by default have the morals to respect other people, and not be some asshole looking to do as you please.

I would expect kids to grow out of the rebellious attitude by college, not to keep it up! But then, in the 50's, kids were spanked, were told what to do, and listened. Our lovely hippies who let them do what they want are honestly responsible for millions of murders by kids.

Not having read all the comments, and just commenting on this statement, I agree. I think this is a case where the lobbyist have gotten more power than they merit based upon public support.

That is not to say Pirating should be legal, only that the DRM group has gone too far in trying to ferret out pirates. To the point that they are making criminals of law abiding citizens. The hope by the DRM group is that this will go unnoticed. Fortunately they are wrong.

sounds like darchknight2008 has some moral issues of his own taking in others OPINIONS and slandering them looks like to be one of your major hotspots. This whole topic is opinion based.

But anyways, arguing this topic is like trying to argue about politics, religion, and abortion (which are the 3 top things you NEVER argue about, as they have no resolution). Every person has there own opinions. This is exactly how laws come into effect, by opinions. The opinion (or bill) works its way up the chain by finally getting ratified into a law. BUT as has happened before, laws do get changed and ammended. (for those of you that are older im sure you remember schoolhouse rock and "The Bill" episode )

Simply stating that a law is right doesnt make it right, its just a majority summation of what your countries/government decided on. Also what alot of governments dont do is enforce the current laws they already have. Instead they come up with new ones to try and cover up the loopholes in the current system.

Considering that the US government is flawed all to hell, theres no real law that can stay in effect without finding a loophole in the system (i.e. finding a non-educated judge in the topic, current rulings that have already been upheld etc). When a guy falls through a sky light of the house he was trying to rob, sues the owner of the house, and WINS the judgement, that right there tells you that there are major flaws in our so called "Court System".

As for the law, its going to be more time wasted than what they get out of it. Theyll just have to write several other laws that companies have to abide to, companies will then have to adhere to certain rules and data retention policies, and personal privacy is then washed out the door for good.

And also, I for one download games via bittorrent, I try them out. If I like them, I buy them, same goes for music. If I dont, I deleteit, does this make me a thief, again, its all from a personal, opiniated perspective .

And as for the missing music, CD getting scratched post:

If I already paid for the game, I WILL download another copy from bittorrent or some other ways of getting it. What you buy a is a personal license to hold said property/Intellectual Property, not that you can only own 1 physical disk.

Ooh...how wrong you are.

Last I saw none of my CDs had a little slip of paper included that stated...don't worry, laddie...if you go all klutzy and misplace or damage this CD you bought...you can get another one free whenever you like.

You PAID legally for the single 'copy' of the music/content via the medium of a compact disk.  You DID NOT also pay for further 'copies' via an alternate distribution method, legal or otherwise.

It's like dropping your hamburger in the dirt....you're fucked...you don't get another one....unless you buy it again.

I wonder what Joe Sixpack's reaction would be if he found squatters living in that second house. Using someone else's property without their permission, what's wrong with that?

There sure are a lot of misunderstandings in this thread.

The EULA for software typically conveys a right to the purchaser to use the software. The physical media, the CD, the packaging materials and so forth become the property of the purchaser and thus can be re-sold.

This has always been the traditional definition of something legally becoming my property, I can later sell it if I want even though the original seller might suffer a theoretical income loss. Used cars are a big business as is used car parts. The used car market turns out to be the friend of the auto industry making car loans easier and the purchasers decision to buy a new car easier as well.

That's why the EULA does not transfer to me a property interest in a "copy" of the software. Given the state of techonlogy I could then make copies and sell them. Just think if there were Star Trek style replicators, Porches would be plentiful.

Whether or not a used software product is resellabe has been generally held to be legal and EULA's have been worked to limit this activity as well in the form of language granting a single "non-transferable" right to use the copy of software.

A related item that may be of interest are the basics of contract law. A sale is a contract. It's usually documented with the transfer of possession of an item in exchange for money accompanied by a receipt. Generaly, a contract is considered valid if there is a genuine meeting of the minds between the two parties and, consideration (something of value) must be exchanged between the two parties.

The software industry makes staying within standard contract law nearly impossible. First, by hiding the terms of the EULA from the purchaser until after the sale. Second, since I can not possibly know what I've agreed to with the purchase of the software until after I get it home and open it and read it I can't agree there was any willingness on my part during the sale process to agree with what I would have to live with. If I am unhappy with the license terms I can no longer return it because I opened the packaging.

What happens if it won't work with my hardware? Have you tried to read the obscure micro print on these software packages? You need a magnifying glass. Even magnifying(2.0+) reading glasses are insufficient. In short they make the buying decision difficult. Furthermore, many of the measures claimed by the industry as needed to thwart "piracy" are really anti-competitive in their nature.

A valid used software market would alleviate many computer software issues. Of course this would require a change in stance from the industry that somehow even my use of the software remains more the seller's property than mine. It's as if the software industry wants to rent me the use of the software while charging me a purchase price for it.

Finally to this idea that new laws are needed to punish "pirates" I have to ask why? We have proven methods in place including arrest and trials. Judges have latitude in sentencing and are already known to escalate punishments for more serious offenses. I think what is happening here is the industry is attempting to transfer the costs and burdens of protecting their products to the taxpayers and the legal system.

It also can not address the source of the problem because they are typically out of jurisdiction. Hence much of these efforts come across to me as an attempt to harshly punish the local denizens who nibble on these sort of illicit fruits because they're here, while those who are making such things possible remain beyond reach.

The best solutions for such problems are carrots. Like the Stardock model. Buy version 1.0, to get updates and enhancements you need to be registered and activated. This won't prevent "cracked" piracy but, it will tend to stimulate interest in the full version.

Every retailer has problems with shoplifters. How much to spend preventing theft is the issue. The legal system is only willing to absorb so much cost in prosecuting these types of offenses. The legal system should keep the burden of protecting software products on the software companies where it belongs.

end of my 2+ cents.

No. As stated later, I did indeed not purchase the product. I merely license it under an EULA. The EULA says as long as I pay my license fee, I am free to use the software on a single PC. Therefore, since it's not a final end-user sale, and I don't buy the media, but the information on it, why can't I insist on my licensed right to re-use the software? They did grant it, and now they took it away because it's linked to a physical item (the DVD). So if the DVD is replaced (which I will cover the cost for), we resume the license we already agreed to.

If it was a physical sale, instead of a license, I would agree with you, yes, then it's my problem.

OK, another scenario, then. I buy Sins from a retailer, and receive a license key. I register this with Impulse and receive updates. Then I lose my disks. I download a torrent of sins, or copy a friend's DVD, then install it on my own PC using my original license key (I always keep copies of such). Is this considered theft/piracy? What does Stardock feel about it officially?

Not a clue - ask Stardock.

Regards
Zy

Why would you do that? You can download the whole thing from Impulse after registering anyway. There's no point in wasting time with torrents.

I think it's a bold idea. I'd probably expand it to protect all IP that's violated, mostly through the torrents. The question is how reliable is their evidence collecting systems? And what's to protect some physically-disabled telecommuter from being falsely accused? Will one misclick make that person unemployable for a full year?