Having read this and other posts in this thread I am amazed that some posters cannot understand the following:

The EULA is worded differently in different countries. It is no use quoting what is written in the American, Italian or Chinese version of the EULA - what is relevant is the Danish version.

Laws differ from country to country. Again, it is pointless to quote the law a country other than Denmark in trying to decide the most appropriate outcome for this case.

You can see this. I can see this. Why do some people believe that their little world is the only world that exists?

And why shouldn't someone install their software to a non-native partition? It should work. Before Vista you could quite easily install to ext2/ext3 under Windows but, now, Microsoft have blocked that course of action. See other threads (http://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/07/02/1317229/Linux-Patch-Clears-the-Air-For-Use-of-Microsofts-FAT-Filesystem) for further discussion.

Not so - they are suppose to comply with all of the DPA unless they have previously claimed a waiver which, in most cases, they haven't because they cannot justify it. You are correct in the implication that the Government rarely get taken to task when they do not comply with the DPA whereas others do, but that is not because they are exempt from it. I have worked in a Government department and I have had responsibility for data protection as part of my job. The Data Protection Registrar has also publicly criticised the Government for its poor compliance record although I don't think that the Government will lose much sleep over it.

"It is not that Michael Jackson died. It is that he died suddenly and unexpectedly."

People of around his age, particularly those who might be on continual medication, are dying 'suddenly and unexpectedly' all the time. Although he is at the young end of the coronary heart disease spectrum he is by no means the only 50 year old to die of heart failure. The only reason that this made the news is because of who he was. And, as many of us have pointed out, how important or influential he might be considered to be is an individual thing. Will I wake up in a month's time thinking 'Oh no - Michael Jackson is dead'? Nope - nor do I often think of John Lennon or Elvis. I acknowledge their contribution to the music industry but there are many, many, many things far more important in day-to-day life than the death of a popular musician.

Its a bit of a leap to say the 'whole country was brought to its knees' when actually the direct effects of the attack were much less severe. The indirect effects, i.e. those introduced by the Government in the wake of 9/11, were much more noticeable but I would not describe the Government as '19 men armed with box cutters'. Most of the problems resulting from 9/11 are self-induced and, as many have commented elsewhere numerous times before, they do little to change the probability of a terrorist attack actually occurring again in the future.

Look at the total number of deaths caused by 9/11 and then compare it to the number of deaths caused by traffic accidents or coronary disease, or the damage caused by floods resulting from by hurricanes.

You might not have RTFA, but the Greeks are NOT complaining about the filming per se, but they want to be reassured that the data collected will be protected in accordance with current European law. For example, police recordings are protected or, at least, they have made a case for how they will protect the data which has satisfied the appropriate legal bodies. However, Google has not convinced the Greek authorities that it will provide adequate protection of its data.

Now this might not worry you. But in Europe, collecting the data is only the start of it. Personal data (and that includes identities, addresses, personal habits and traits, a person's car details etc), if stored on computers, can be collected only for a specific purpose and must then be protected from unauthorised use i.e. from being used for any other purpose. Google must state what they intend the authorised use to be (which they have) and then state how they intend to protect the data from any other unauthorised usage (which they haven't yet done). How will they prevent criminals from accessing the data for unauthorised purposes? The claim that it is all in the public domain is a bit of a red herring - criminals don't usually have such a mass of data at their fingertips and, in any event, it is for Google to show how they will comply with the current law not to argue the case for why the current law should be changed. How will they prevent individuals from accessing the data for a purpose other than that intended by Google?

I don't criticise Greece for its actions but I do criticise many other European countries which have simply ignored European law and allowed the data collection to continue. Google might be able to comply with the current legislation and, if they can, they will be allowed to continue.

What is this troll trying to say in English???

You've spelled it out for me - and I still haven't got a clue what you are talking about. Is it a child's program, a hip-hop DJ, or what?

But, if I've understood your analogy correctly, you're claiming that the US has paid for all of the internet infrastructure? That is incorrect. Many nations around the world have invested in their own internet infrastructure, and more than just the US has been instrumental in providing technical innovation and progress to the network that began with ARPANet. To claim that it is an entirely US funded and developed resource is simply wrong. It began with an idea that originated in America, but it has grown because of the contribution of many nations and individuals.

No, he is the father of Corporal Punishment and Private Land, which is probably where you have heard his name .....

I have to agree with you! The above quote comes from the GIFC (http://www.internetfreedom.org/) web page. How do they square that statement with the other Government policies that aim to restrict an individual's access?

OK, only uploading is illegal. But if no-one is uploading, there will not be much to download will there, even if you are not punished for it?

The law does not have to be broken to be challenged. As I said in my earlier post, most civilised countries have recognised procedures for challenging unjust laws without the need for resorting to anarchy. The procedures are different in each country but, afaik, nowhere in the EU is breaking the law seen as an acceptable method of challenging the validity of a law. It might be different in your country but we are discussing a European law and its implementation and enforcement in Germany. (A law, incidentally, that was introduced after much encouragement from the USA. And now some Americans are saying that we shouldn't obey it!?)

What law states that powerful businesses are protected? None here in the EU that I know of. The law being enforced here is the protection of copyright material. The material could easily have been a piece of software, a scientific thesis or something else equally useful and entirely worthy of such protection. It is only being challenged here because it is preventing some from copying and exchanging their copyrighted music, porn or films for free.

Rapidshare was complying with the law in the country in which it was operating. I would have thought that this was an entirely reasonable thing to do.

Of course, because they are prepared to comply with the law means that you cannot continue to download copyright material to which you have no implied right with impunity. Now you might have to face the consequences of your actions in much the same way as you would expect to be treated if you broke any other law.

You have no inherent right to the product of someone else's work simply because you believe that all music or films should be distributed free of charge to anyone who wants them. The laws regarding copyright might well be biased too far in favour of those who own the copyright, but the correct way to counter this is to get the law changed.

Please don't think that you represent me when you use the word 'We'. I do not like the laws regarding copyright, but breaking the law is not necessarily the best way to get the law changed. It might seem like one possible solution and it may indeed be tolerated in a small number of countries but most of the civilised world has an alternative process in place for such needs.

Posting AC also indicates quite a bit about your character. If you haven't the courage to stand up for your beliefs and be seen to be doing so then you are certainly not taking part in an act of civil disobedience, but simply hiding in the shadows in fear. In which case perhaps you have already destroyed your own argument.

No, it changes nothing. No-one is forcing you to buy Elvis' music, nor are you being prevented from listening to music that you have already bought. It will not change the cost of anything that you are thinking of buying. The cost of producing the music hasn't increased, simply the time for which the record company can claim sole control over who performs it. And, although I do not support this law, nothing is making me pay any more in the future than I do now. I don't have to listen to the music. Music and other art is not a daily essential for life. But those that want to make a profit from the use of the music score (i.e. musicians and others) or who want to earn money from public performances of the records (e.g. radio stations, DJs) have a right to complain. But I haven't heard them complaining with anything like the vigour that would be required to have prevented this law from being passed.

I think that this law sucks - but it will not have the slightest effect upon my life. If the radio stations go bust, or musicians stop performing music that they haven't written themselves, then it will be those that market the music who, ultimately, will lose out. Their royalty stream will dry up.

Those musicians that feel strongly that their music should be left for the common good can always release it under some other licence. There is no law saying that you have to enforce the copyright that you might have on your work. As long as you don't sign it away to the record company this will not enable them to earn any more money from it than they do today. If the big names simply give the right to public performances to the public then no law has been broken and everyone is happy. Those that believe that they have a right to an income in near perpetuity for their labour will have to get used to the fact that they are deluding themselves. I am not being forced to contribute to their pension scheme.