"There may be no DMCA outside the US as the DMCA is an American law, but the WIPO Copyright Treaty upon which it is based has been enacted in many other countries. "
Key phrase is "upon which it is based". This doesn't mean everything that is in the DMCA is in the WIPO treaty. For example the protection that controll access is not part of the WIP treaty (and not the EU directive either) but is something some countries, even in Europe has added. But many countries doesn't include protection that controll access to what is covered. Encryption doesn't in itself prevent copying and hence encrypting something doesn't really prevent copying and would thus not be covered. It can be covered when controling the access to the public, but not for copying.
So it in many countries, the HDCP is not a technical meassure that is covered since it doesn't prevent copying, just accessing whatever is encrypted.
"Just like Chinese, this is required by Apple too. They say it's so that you cannot buy multiple phones, but you still are required to give them your real name when you want to buy a phone."
That is a really stupid thing since names are not unique. Or are you saying that if Bill Johnson buys a phone from Apple, no other Bill Johnson can buy a phone from Apple?
"How does it benefit anyone except the guy selling it?"
You mean it is not a benefit to the public to be able to get it?
"they were convicted because the court became convinced that they actively encouraged and profited by Piracy,"
The fact that they profited, or not, is completely irrellevant for the question if they did anything illegal or not. It is an issue when determining the ammount of money they would have to pay though.
"you can make copies of anything you own"
Actually you don't have to own it. The only requirement (added in 2005) is that the original you make the copy from was not created in an infringing way and that it is not made available to the public in an infringing way. In addition, computer software is excluded completely as well as complete or substansial parts of books. You are also only allwed to make a few such copies of each work.
"People think they are buying a game (and rightly so)"
Most people DO buy a copy of the game as per normal sales laws. Such a sale has nothing to do with copyright and often the purchase is not from the copyright holder but from a store.
"and game producers think they are licensing you the rights to play the game (usually with lots of DRM to enforce these rights)"
Depending on country that is a nonsens sale since there is no need to purchase such a right, there is nothing forbidding you to play it to start with. Even if one do need such a license, and the sale is of a licnese, one still then needs to get hold of a copy of the game so that one can use the license. How would that be done? Well, as far as I can see, any license is typically sold together with a copy of the game. So one can in those cases argue that they sell BOTH a license and a copy of the game. In the end one to buy a copy of the game in either case.
"They are digitizing works and make them available for search. "
So they are creating a copy of the work! Creating copies are covered by copyright. So are creating copies of basically anything now OK?
"Why don't people want to pay for what they use anymore?"
Do you pay the writer som money when you for example borrows a book from someone to read? Or what about when you listen to some music at someone elses house? Or when you sit in a chair doing so. Or do you want to use it without paying for it?
"Didn't the BNetD ruling mean that these servers are vulnerable to lawsuits?"
Are they all in the US? At least the list seems to be in Germany.
>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.
The finest eloquence is that which gets things done.