[AFGNCAAP]

Missed me? Sorry I'm replying late, but I wanted to gather thoughts first rather than reply to just a part of your post.

Originally Posted by Jeysie

Because an individual store isn't interested per se in stopping piracy in general as it is in just stopping personal piracy.

For instance, if a store sells a CD, and the customer copies that CD to kingdom come to pirate but keeps the original, well, the store still got its sale/money.

But if he distributes those copies among all his friends in the neighborhood, this may affect future sales (of course, the store accepting the returned copy wouldn't help it one bit; I've just wanted to point out that merchandisers should be interested in stopping piracy in general as much as publishers are).

On the other hand, if the customer who bought the CD makes a copy (or 2 or 3), then returns the original CD, the store has now lost money. The customer has now pirated a CD with lower risk of being caught (without return restrictions, anyway), and the store is stuck with a CD that is now either unsaleable, or has to be sold at reduced cost (since it's opened).

True. Note, however, that except the "has now lost money" part, all of these apply if the game was replaced with an unopened copy (which is a common procedure, if I understood you well).

True enough. The results are far different, though.

(I left out those I didn't find arguable)

Return Restrictions:

For two, unopened items have no restrictions.

So basically every customer is a potential scammer, unless he has an access to a shrinkwrap machine.

For three, most people return an item because it is defective in some way. The fact that you can exchange an opened item for a copy of the same item addresses this problem. (There are also things like company recalls and whatnot, in which case even opened items can be fully refunded.)

Not every defect is copy-specific, though.

For four, return restrictions, when fully enforced, are just about completely effective in stopping scams... after all, if the manager won't take the item back, plan thwarted.

Well, yes, obviously, if you approach everyone as he was trying to cheat you, you'll never be cheated (in that particular way at least). But I've always been a fan of the presumption of innocence rule, myself.

Finally, a manager can override store policy on a case-by-case basis if need be.

Which invalidates "For four" a bit, don't you think?

DRM Methods:

For two, you're limited in the use of an actual product you own.

No, and we've discussed that before. You don't own the game per se, you only paid for a right to play it (and owning a physical carrier like CD or DVD is a side effect of this). Admittedly, nobody in their right mind follows this rule to the letter in practice (eg. thankfully, no one legally pursues the sellers of used games on eBay), but technically that's how it is.

For four, no DRM method that I know of stops piracy completely, so it's mostly useless at its purpose. (How useless depending on your personal perception of how "big" a problem it is.)

There are no wonder solutions for anything in life. No legal system I know of stops criminals completely, but that shouldn't mean we ought to drop the idea of law altogether.

For five, some DRM methods prevent some people from even being able to use the items they bought, due to problems.

Similarly, some retailers sell dysfunctional products. Even if StarForce, or other copy protection systems, are allegedly harmful software, this argument has no place here. (Unless, again, you provided some actual figures. "Some" will always abuse any given law or opportunity.)