As I've yet to see any proof that TPB has amassed wealth for it's creators, nor proof that software corporations lose sales from piracy, that is assumption, not fact.

Evidence points to the contrary in the case of the RIAA, that music sales increased because of piracy.

It's not about right or wrong, it's about legal and illegal in that analogy. And copyright laws were rewritten to suit the needs of the entertainment companies.

Also, once more, pirating is not stealing, because there's no physical transfer of goods.

It may be a fictional loss now but as you say, the market is developing. Loss of someone buying a bargin bin title a couple years later is still a loss. More importantly, you are assuming a significant percentage of that developing market is capable and willing to recognize when the time of "OK" pirating is over and the time to start buying begins. Whether this is good for buisiness will not be apparent for another 10 or 20 years, when we see whether the relative handful of paying customers now are followed by the large majority of currently non-paying users.

I am assuming nothing.  Romania has a blossoming tech sector, Romania has a 70% piracy rate.

100% of zero is zero.  No piracy, no tech sector in Romania, no tech sector in Romania, no tech software in Romania.

To complain about piracy in Romania is to complain about having 30% of something.  When and how many of them become honest customers does not change the fact that piracy created the market.

I think companies should stop fucking me in the ass because some Romanian making $8k a year is stealing Windows.  It doesn't do them any good, it doesn't do the Romanians any good, and it doesn't do me any good.  Legality is irrelevant.

Piracy is not always a loss... Some year ago, in China, you was with the free Linux that gov wich use and million of people with pirated version of Windows OS... Microsoft was happy with the situation...

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/07/23/100134488/

By 2001, Microsoft executives were coming to the conclusion that China's weak IP-enforcement laws meant its usual pricing strategies were doomed to fail. Gates argued at the time that while it was terrible that people in China pirated so much software, if they were going to pirate anybody's software he'd certainly prefer it be Microsoft's.

Today Gates openly concedes that tolerating piracy turned out to be Microsoft's best long-term strategy. That's why Windows is used on an estimated 90% of China's 120 million PCs. "It's easier for our software to compete with Linux when there's piracy than when there's not," Gates says. "Are you kidding? You can get the real thing, and you get the same price." Indeed, in China's back alleys, Linux often costs more than Windows because it requires more disks. And Microsoft's own prices have dropped so low it now sells a $3 package of Windows and Office to students.

Now that the Linux threat was removed from China, Microsoft is the master there... and recently, a lot of China people fear the "black screen of death", a new protection again pirated version embedded in Vista software...

So, yes, piracy can be bad for everything who is free ( in these example Linux )... some business organize themself leak of their product... it is cheaper that a big worldwide publicity campaign... good thing is that Microsoft have adapt the price of his product in function of the income in the country where they distribute their product... better a million time a little something that nothing at all...

Now, let see the Stardock case, sins the game and piracy... Stardock don't care to much about piracy, and their product don't use any usual protection system ( only a serial )... this lead to a cheaper product ( don't need to pay for a protection system )... Stardock have choice to have enough low price when compare to other distributor, have ease the work of pirate due to the non copy protection... result for sins was around 1 million $$$ invested and a return around ten time bigger... at the technology level, with Sins, Stardock have choose a software who was able to reach and run on a lot of computer, low end system are able to run sins... the people who own these low end computer can be poor people, without a high band internet connection, not able to download gb of pirate date each day...

My point is simple... piracy is bad but fight it lead to no valuable result and cost a lost of money ( that honest people finance by buying legal product )... i think that the Microsoft way or maybe the Stardock way who is better... in place of swim againt the flow, they float and follow the stream... they create cheap product, who can be used by a lot of system... Result is mone money return in the long time for lower expense... Only request for so system to work is to have a good product !!!

Piracy are like the hookers... they have always exist and will always exist... use them for your benefice if you can, fight them is a loose of money that your honest customer need to finance... else ignore them... use the energy and money for make better product in place of fight in a war that you cannot win in the long term...

You really like that word "irrelevant".  I don't think that word means what you think it means.

It sounds like you don't want to answer my question because you feel intuitively that there is something wrong with the answer you would have to give - that you think that some people (you, your friends, and "poor" or "good" people) should be able to pirate whatever they want, but that other people ("rich" or "evil" people and corporations) should be forced to pay for everything.  I think you're avoiding having to actually state that by claiming everything is irrelevant.  Especially since you claimed that law should be law and that it needs to apply to everyone equally.

Exactly what SD, GPG & IG are doing. In short, showing love to their patrons.

Their patrons responded to this love by pirating 10 copies of Demigod for every 1 that was purchased.  Then they overloaded their servers because Stardock had massively understimated how many pirates there were.  Then, all the pirates created a storm of negative PR about how the servers sucked, all of them pretending they had bought the game.  This resulted in several low reviews on game sites, a huge loss in profits, and tons of extra work trying to stabilize the servers and enforce some new online-activation (DRM) in order to just get their game working for those few who had actually paid for it.

Love doesn't work so well.

Let me add this as well:  Stardock does not CONDONE piracy.  They still believe in copyright.  They still attempt to enforce their copyright.  They still believe in Intellectual Property, and their right to sell copies of their software.  They are still a corporation.  They still rely on copyright law to make profits.  The only real difference between them and others is that they put less DRM on their games.  They are essentially saying that they can't afford to fight piracy, NOT THAT IT'S OK.  If they had their way, no one would pirate their game.  They just don't want to use DRM to do it.

So don't confuse DRM-lite companies with pro-piracy kids.  Stardock would still tell you you're a douche for stealing their game; they would still tell you that corporations have the right to enforce their copyright, and they'd still try to stop you if it was easy and didn't cause any problems for their paying customers.

Irrelevant: Not having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand.

Stop asking stupid questions and attempt to demonstrate at least a high school reading level before nitpicking my post.  This idiotic attempt to disqualify my points by labeling me a pirate is getting old, I don't give a fuck about your ego.

What Romania does is none of my business.  Romania is a sovereign country and should be treated as such.  Forcing them into copyright laws they weren't ready to accept accomplished nothing.  Legality really is irrelevant.

Copyright is a social contract.  Society cedes a right, in this case the right to copy something they've come in contact with, in order to gain something, in this case the plentiful production of those products.  It doesn't exist unless society says it does.  Romanians weren't interested in copyright because it didn't benefit them any to be forced into paying a months wages for a crappy computer they couldn't afford to use.  Most of them still arent for that very reason.  Copyrighted materials from our country are not plentiful because they are not affordable.

We're too fucking stupid to sell them at a price they can afford, and they're too fucking poor to pay what we're charging.  Making it illegal didn't change the fact that the average Romanian had to pay four months wages to get a top of the line computer.  Enforcing the law wont change the fact that they still have to pay two months wages today.

Enterprise level DRM like Starforce that is designed to thwart real pirates with their own cd factories doesn't do them any good, and doesn't do me any good.  Ubisoft wasn't evil for using Starforce, they didn't use it because they were a corporation.  They used Starforce because they were fucking stupid and couldn't do basic arithmatic.  A guy making eight grand a year in country x isn't buying a fifty dollar game that plays on a two thousand dollar computer, lets fuck over our customers and waste a bunch of money so it's harder to pirate!

Now that I've yet again demonstrated why you're an idiot for obsessing over irrelevant details, I'll repeat my statement.  I think companies should stop fucking me in the ass because some Romanian making $8k a year is stealing Windows.  It doesn't do them any good, it doesn't do the Romanians any good, and it doesn't do me any good.  Legality is irrelevant.

Educate thyself, no one else will.

IF a thief was in court and the Judge was a member of an anti-thief club, I'd find it difficult to call this a conflict of interest.

Whether or not piracy should be legal is not "irrelevant"; it's a very important question; basically THE most important question relating to the entire concept of copyright and piracy.  But it seems you'd rather fly into an insult-hurling rage than be forced to think about it.

Impartiality is necessary when an individual acts in a certain capacity such as judge !!!

In these case, since the judge was linked with the 3 lawers of the accusation, i have doubt about the impartiality of the judge... a doubt is enough for make the judgment non valid...

Look at the reverse situation... if the judge was using PirateBay actively for download software free of charge and he will have in court, remove all charge and free the guys... What will you think ?