Return policy in this case falls under as an extension of Uniform Commercial Code, and while it may be listed in the contract, the primary body of the contract has most likely already been executed.

Wrong. Retailers are almost always independent parties who are simply reselling a product. The transaction with the OEM is already completed and any business has been tidied up. Once I have the product, I am free to sell it independently unless I have an injunction placed against me directly.

There is no magical developmental panacea. That being said, Agile is pretty good - for some things. It's great when you aren't sure where you are heading, when you're doing a prototype run, or when you are just building data on how interested in something people are. It's also useful for when you just need to build a small product.

Agile isn't some amazing process which should replace everything. There is no one-size-fits-all development process. Everything has it's place, and Agile's place is in prototypes, rapid development, and exploratory designs.

Knowing how code is structured doesn't automatically mean you know where bugs are. In addition, non-deterministic code occurs on a regular basis in several fields (bioinformatics, MLAs, NLP, so on).

Having a personal project doesn't mean you don't have contributors - It means that you are the only main contributor. You may still receive translations or patches from users or enthusiasts occasionally. In addition, having a public bug tracker helps your users know what to expect when they use your product.

That works great - when you only have a few hundred lines of simple code. However, when you have 200k lines, a couple hundred different files, and some very complex functionality, you need a more complex system.

In addition, how do you manage multiple contributors? How do you deal with letting your users know when bugs are fixed? How do you deal with issues that only occur in a very small amount of edge cases?

It's one thing to fix some code you fat fingered or to clean up some API calls. It's an entirely different thing to fix bugs in 200k lines of non-deterministic code that runs on 3+ platforms.

Value is (traditionally) based on scarcity. Digital goods (even with absolutely no piracy) have absolutely no scarcity unless it's entirely artificial. So, now, value is based on convenience and service. I don't go to a nice restaurant because I think the food is good (I can cook just as well at home and get a much nicer meal), but rather, I eat at a nice restaurant because I want to be waited on and I want someone to cook for me and bring me fancy drinks.

Digital goods must be approached the same way. When they are approached this way, then piracy has absolutely NO effect on their value. Digital goods have no scarcity, and therefore, wider distribution can not affect the value.

What if I enjoy the content, decides it's good, and then pay for it?

Alternative, what if I pay for the content and find out I hate it?

From my standpoint, I'm not going to pay for anything if I'm going to be treated like a criminal when I do. I'm also not going to drop 10$ for an ebook that cost all of 2$ to produce, nor am I going to drop 50 or 60$ for a videogame I don't get to try out first.

My other issue is this: The RIAA/MPAA (and their counterparts in other countries) have REPEATEDLY gone after Indies, legally free programs, and the like. They attempt to hunt down and destroy anyone who provides a better deal then them.

How I wish I had mod points...

You hit the nail on the head. Treating your customers like criminals will never, ever, get the results you want.

Funny enough you mention that they are bound by Contract.

You see, in all of these contracts (and usually verbatim in government contracts), the duty of the secret keeper is forfeit if the information contained is either illegal, or (in America) goes against "the will" of the people.

In another words, if you bind me via contract to not disclose that you're going to nuke New York, and I tell someone, then I have *not* violated my contract (either the contract is invalid in the first place as it violates established law, or my duty to the law/my fellow citizens surpasses my contracted duty).

In these cases, most of these people ARE whistleblowers. The information they release has been released because the whistleblower feels it either violates established law or that it goes against the will of the people.

Yet several of those machines continue running, and have been for months.

You severely overestimate the average consumer.

With javascript injection and a local web server, forcing a popup to appear on every page of "the whole internet" is trivial. There are, in fact, SEVERAL pieces of malware which already use this tactic.

Of course, because the sorts of people who run infected machines constantly are well aware of things like signing keys.

The law here is a bit more complex. It's not just a matter of "interacting", it's a matter of having committed the same crime, at the same time, at the same place.

So, a nice example would be a bank robbery. Lets say you and me robbed a bank together. Clearly, we would be litigated against together, since we clearly interacted.

However, lets say I robbed a bank, and then 20 minutes later, without knowing about my robbery, you rob the same bank in the same way. In this instance, we have not interacted.

How this applies to Swarms is where it gets tricky. If I join a swarm several hours after you've gotten the file, seeded, and left, are we interacting?

Wrong. He had sex with them with their consent, then they retroactively attempted to withdraw their consent - AFTER they were visited by a prosecutor.

You can't retroactively withdraw consent for something that has already occurred.

Oh, and using QED like that just makes you sound like an asshole.

Are you referring to the same NSDAP platform of 1920 as declared by Adolf Hitler as I am? You know, the crazy one that burned, maimed and executed Jews, Gypsies, the handicapped, and non-whites? Because they are pretty much pure on conservative. I'll quote a few highlights here.

"Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a guest, and must be under the authority of legislation for foreigners."

"Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented."

" We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death"

And my personal favorite (emphasis mine) "24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: common utility precedes individual utility."

Aside from some *very* basic progressive ideas (parks, some basic welfare), the Nazi party is fundamentally conservative, both in it's approaches to foreigners, it's heavy usage of Christianity, and the death penalty.

I think you're going to find FDR to be at odds with Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini at several places. Obviously, he agreed on minor points (public parks, welfare), but on most he did not. While Hitler was putting Nuremberg Decrees in place, FDR was setting up social security.