He said he lives in Europe so how is he a good American?

Well that is not such as easy argument as you make it out to be. There has indeed been controversy about medical research based on the "work" done in Nazi concentration camps. The ethical debate about that isn't as easy as you make it out to be here. You make arguments that are internally inconsistent but which justify you getting products that lawfully should be paid for by deciding how to interpret your objection to those laws. Again I'd ask "Explain how your actions are distinguishable from someone trying to get away without paying for these copyrighted products?"

If I thought something was the product of an unethical system like slavery I wouldn't find a way to get a copy of it so I could enjoy it. Your arguments don't make sense except as an excuse for you to download/pirate things. If you TRULY thought the system of copyright was unethical you wouldn't participate in that market.

Yet you get to enjoy these products that are produced under the copyright scheme that you believe is morally wrong?

First of all before this post you kept saying "real property" which was quite confusing and I couldn't see the connection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_property So you disagree with copyright infringement laws? Explain again how your actions are distinguishable from someone trying to get away without paying for these copyrighted products?

Not really... If I write a book or a bit of software or make a film and copyright it... what real property right is infringed upon?

So do you believe that the profits made from copyrighted items to be ill-gotten gains? The logical extension of that would be the end of most software, books, movies.

How does copyright infringe upon real property rights?

So explain to me how your actions or the actions you are defending appear different from the actions of someone that just wants to get whatever they want for free because they feel entitled?

Wasn't attempting a personal attack.. I really don't see how you can go from "that's not ethical" to deciding it is ethical to then take that for free. Would you go from deciding that property ownership isn't ethical to then going into stores and stealing their goods? or would you instead decide to try to do without those things?

Let's just say I write a book and copyright it. I decide to sell it for $1 a copy. You believe your rights are infringed upon if you are not able to make unlimited copies of that to distribute it?

If you don't accept it as ethical you have the option to refuse to participate in that market. (By not buying or using copyrighted software or material like books or movies.) It seems awfully like you are just finding a convenient justification to refuse to pay for something.

Well at least one of the posts here didnt' say "I really can't afford this so I pirate it", it referenced the company's management as justification for the pirating. How does one ethically decide which software to spend the money on and which to 'pirate'? I work for a software company and I guess for my livelihood I have to hope that people spend the money on our product rather than deciding they already spent their funds and instead decided to pirate our product?

I'm trying to grasp how you justify to yourself that pirating this game is at all ethical?

Would you walk into a Best Buy and stick this game into your backpack and sneak out with it? If not, what's the difference between that and pirating it?