>Until it's put up front on the outside of the box,
>an EULA is not a legally-binding contract.

Are you suggesting that anything printed on the outside of something you buy forms a contract with the buyer?

>What if I already wasn't worried about being sued
>because my country doesn't recognise software patents

What if one would live in a country that do not only recognize software patents but also makes it criminal to infringe them (something for example proposed in Europe not long ago)? Since one doesn't have a license one would still infringe the patent even if Microsoft agrees to not press charges.

Or what if the patent for some reason would end up in someone elses hand than Microsoft? Again since one doesn't have a license, one can be in trouble.

>BUT most countries have their own laws that regulate the same things as DMCA.
>In Sweden we got the wording of most of those laws as directives from EU (EU
>Copyright Directive, Electronic Commerce Directive and a myriad of in scope
>more limited directives), mixed up with our own soup of old pre-EU laws.

There are in my opinion some huge differences though. If we look at the Swedish copyright law, it does not have "access" in its law the way the DMCA has. Thus it doesn't create a new indirect right to the copyright holder of accessing. It is stricly for copyright related actions of which access is not one. In addition it is very clear in that if you mix protection that DO fall under the law with protection that does NOT (for example acess, region coding), the law no longer covers the part that would otherwise have been covered.

No, not really, only one of them voted for the Pirate Party, the others did not. If he is also a member of the Pirate Party I have no idea.

>It's not YOUR PC though, the hardware is but
>Microsoft own the copy of Windows running on it,

No, Microsoft owns the COPYRIGHT to Windows. The individual copies of Windows are owned by their cusotmers, the users, the ones who bought the individual copies.

>you only own a license to use Windows under
>their terms and conditions.

No need for any license (in many countries at least) since copyright law doesn't have "use" as an exclusive right of the copyright holder. Further more, any copying needed during use are specifically allowed by the copyright law without permision needed by the copyright holder. As mentioned above, some countries might have it otherwise but in general, not.

In addition, many countries, for example those of the EU have additional laws regulating contractual terms with consumers forbiding unfair such terms, meaning even if one would in some way enter into a contract with a softwaremaker for some rerason, they could still not dictate their terms freely.

>Unless the Data Retention directive explicitly forbids that other laws
>give other permissions to the data in question, the MAFIAA got it just
>the way they want it. And that would be very, very unusual to put in law

And yet that is exactly what the law says. Or rather, it says the data stored according to this law can ONLY be accessed and required for by police and other govermental authorities in investigations of more serious crimes. Not eben the ISP and others who store data themselves are allowed to access this data.

Of course, they can store data IN ADDITION to this law according to other existing laws as well, which would be the exact same system as we have today. Actually the leaked "Lagrådsremiss" specifically comments a request by media companies that also wanted access to this data saying that they will not get access to it.

>This law itself, in it's current form,
>nullifies the newly passed IPRED law.

No it doesn't, it doesn't affect the IPRED law at all.

>The law says that stored information can only be
>requested by the police or prosecutors if a serious
>crime has been committed (or the suspicion of a serious crime).

Yes, the data saved due to THIS law. It doesn't prevent, for example an ISP to save data IN ADDITION to this law, in accordance with old laws just as they can do today. They will probably do this, because just as this new law says only police can require it, not even the ISP, telecompanies or anyone else can access the data themselves stored according to this law. In effect there will thus be doubble savings of data. In the end, no effect on existing laws.

>Hence a third party like RIAA cannot request information
>to file a suit according to the IPRED law.

Hence they can't request information from data stored by this law, but can do so from data stored according to other laws, including the data the ISP and others store for own personal use, just like before.

>I agree with most of what you are saying, but it is a fact that immaterial
>things can literally be stolen from a person... for example, an electronic
>money transfer involves no exchange of any physical goods.

So if someone copy my electronical money transfer (or electronic money) you argue someone stole from me despite I still having the money? Strange I would not see it that way.

The difference is in the creation of a NEW copy when you copy. In theft, no one creats a new copy, instead there is a change in ownership of an allready existing copy. Quite a big difference and also the laws governing them differs a lot. For example many countries has the concept of copying for privat use being perfectly legal while no country I am aware of have any laws of stealing for private use being OK.

>It was also a large factor that they profited from it so much.

Actually the court didn't accept that claim. They didn't profit anything.

>But what we have in the case of TPB is that they
>state that they hate copyright, and perform an
>infringing act.

But they have many times stated that they are of opinion that what they do is perfectly legal based on previous cases in Sweden. Read for example the replies that they have posted on their site. Sure, the language is not the best but they DO tell that they are acting according to the law and based on previous court cases.

>Those questions were asked in order to help establish intent.

But having an opiion or a view is not in it self an intent. I can be ov the view that a certain action should not be ilegal, that does not mean that should I happen to do such a thing I also had intent to that specific act.

>As a result, copying by private individuals is fully legal in
>the Netherlands (despite attempts by BREIN to have it otherwise).
>The only tricky part is this:
>
>Can TPB successfully argue that not they, but their users make the copies?

First, the part of the charges dealing with making coppies was droped from the trial. They got convicted on the uploading part, for helping out. This is part of the various forms of making a work available to the public for example public performance but also as in this case transmission (överföring) to the public. Basiclaly making it available by wire or wireless for people at other places who can get access to it in places and at times of their chosing (bad translation of the law but that is more or less what it is about). This has NOTHING to do with the copying (for private use).

Also note that in Sweden, I have no idea about the dutch copyright laws, there is a requirement for copying for private use that requires the original (of the copying) to not have been created or made available to the public against the law.