Sorry, but if you've got your kids playing your porn games, then the problem is not what those porn games are.
If you're in a country with legal guns, then I assume that if your kids got their hands on the firearm - you wouldn't blame the hole in their leg on the firearm. You'd put the damn thing out of reach.

Stop trying to discuss gaming issues with respect to children who shouldn't see them or play them. It's not relevant. If they are playing them, it's a case of bad parenting.

Where in this case, "Being a dick" is defined as someone doing something that's going to make them profit and you lose money.

If your friends think it's rude not to let them borrow your stuff, it's probably because you borrow their stuff, or they help you out regularly and they expect some give and take.

I wish I had mod-points for this statement.

Aww...

Actually, there is one, but it requires 9 months foresight.

And that's the kinda creepy stalkerish behaviour that the earlier threads were against.

What religion is your current president?
What religion is the one before that?
What religion is the one before that?
What religion is the one before that?

Let me know when you get the point

Yes, let's assume that the advert is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
That's what a published demo is, an advert.
And lately, it seems all demos are tending towards the quality of US TV ads -
"Buy this game! Buy this game! Buy this game! Demo over, now get your ass to the shops, prole."
Crappy demos are hurting companies' sales, for example, I saw more of Killzone 2 in a 10 minute 'let's see what this is like' at a friends house, than I got in the 5 minute crappy demo of the same game.
A £35/£50 purchase should be an informed one, not a shot in the dark.
Then there's the fact that any PC game is non returnable (which I'm sure has to be illegal somehow) - resulting in no-refund purchases based on intentially skewed information.
If that not okay for a £1 sandwich, it's not okay for a £35 game.
So I think anyone using a copy as a demo of the game is on better moral ground than the publishers/developers.
People who copy, play, finish and delete without paying are doing something wrong - even more so if they then spend the money on some other luxury product that could not be pirated.
But I agree with the other posters, piracy is not theft and shouldn't be equated with such as it's stealing schrodinger's money from his wallet in the unopened room with an RIAA lawyer inside.

You need to go research the topic as the three strikes rule does not involve a court, at all.

You need to be accused by the RIAA, or another copyright body, three times. And they don't need much evidence at all to decide that you're guilty.

And if you've been accused by the RIAA of pirating 3 times, they need to stop making false accusations to scaremonger people.

Whilst this doesn't look like it's about Net Neutrality, it is about the neutrality of the internet and specifically the ISPs.
If this 'three strikes' rule gets implemented, all of a sudden the legal system of the internet is no longer controlled by the courts, but by the RIAA and the MPAA and anything else with AA at the end.
I'd say giving a group of companies the right to boot people they decide not to like off the internet is fairly biased, not very neutral at all.

First they came for alcohol, and that was okay, really - because they had lots of evidence to back up the fact that alcohol costs a society money and doesn't produce a net benefit to the people it affects.
Then they came for cigarettes, and that was okay because - FUCK SMOKERS - and also because there was substantial evidence proving that smoking costs society money and doesn't produce a net benefit to the people it affects.
Then they came for violent video games, and that wasn't okay because they had extrememly questionable evidence that it caused the problems mentioned, and more evidence (although equally questionable) that it did not.

So basically it's about evidence, proof, and the fact that penalising something you don't like is quite different from penalising something that is proven to kill directly (not indirectly, or might influence - smoking and alcohol make people fall over and die.)

This isn't a valid comparison people, two quite different issues.

Also, FUCK SMOKERS.

You don't?

Since when does good TV make for a good legal system?

Refering to Godwin must in itself be a Godwin - surely.