This reminds me of a particular conundrum of mine.  Let's say you are at a burger place and someone orders a burger with no cheese and lettuce, but messed up and gave the person a burger with lettuce.  Upon realizing their mistake, they proceed to throw it away.  Here's where another one might ask if they could have the burger if it was going to be thrown away anyways.  However, the burger person doesn't want to do that, because he's afraid that if he gives the burger to that person, that person won't buy another burger because he'll be full. 

Now, the person might be willing to pay for the burger at a discounted price, but even then, the burger place loses money if the person would have paid full price for a regular burger (assuming that the marginal cost of making the burger were much smaller than the price of selling the burger). 

Now, if the person already ate something, or wouldn't otherwise pay full price for a burger, throwing away the burger is a lose lose situation for both sides.  Now, one question that I am curious about.  If the burger people threw away the burger and the trash bag outside, and if the burger were, let's say still perfectly edible (was in a box keeping the burger secure and there's no other trash in the bag), if someone were to take the burger in the dumpster, is it theft?

Now, in the realm of software and digital media, your supply is infinite, and the marginal cost per unit is near zero.  I don't consider piracy theft, because as has been stated many times before, you aren't taking something away from the owner.  I find it more akin to tresspassing because you are making unauthorized use of the media.  In general, it's still wrong, because if everyone pirated, there'd be practically no digital content because the incentive is taken away. 

Regarding the law of banning users who pirate, my main concern would be with possible abuse that could come about with this system.  If they can see what files you are downloading, that would be a pretty big breech in privacy, where even if you weren't doing anything wrong, a system would be in place that if corrupted could cause far more problems.  I would be very weary of such a law.

Ideally, the way you are going to solve piracy is not be selling the game itself for 50 dollars, because that can be acquired by for free using illegal means, but instead sell other goods and services, packaged with the game (like customer support for example) in a way that makes them worth the 50 dollars.  In essence, you are competing with a black market that undercuts your product by quite a bit, and this market seems very difficult to take down as long as there's such a high demand for its products.  Therefore, you have to be clever in making your product worth more somehow. 

I always think solutions to problems like these need to be relatively simple and elegant, otherwise too many problems come up.  Take for example if you have a container of water, and you want the water level to go down.  You can take a lid, and try to push that water down, but unless that lid is a perfect fit, the water will find ways of slipping through the openings and remain a their level.  However, if you just do something as simple as popping a hole at the exact height where you want the water to be, the water sets itself there automatically (as the water drains out until going lower than the whole).  A solution as is proposed here, seems a tad bit too complicated and inelegant, and I'm sure people will just find ways of slipping through the openings.

The difference here is that you aren't losing money if there was none to begin with.  You may have a point if the person would have bought it anyways, but if they wouldn't, then they don't lose money, since the cost of producing that copy is near zero.

Take for example the instance in which someone pirates something who had no legal means of purchasing the product in the first place.  The company is not losing money because they made no effort to sell teh product to the person, and so could not have gained from it anyways.

I"m just saying that it's something different from theft.  Even if the person were to buy it later, you are preventing them from making something in the future.  To rob implies taking away current assets, but their current assets remain the same whether you pirate it or not.

Edit: To further elaborate on this distinction.  Let's say a thief took 50 dollars from someone.  Now, how much did the theif rob from him?  Many would say the thief stole 50 dollars, and that was the crime.  However, let's say that person would have invested the 50 dollars into an account earning 5% interest over 20 years compounded annually.  I believe that amounts to around 132 dollars.  Just because that 50 dollars could have become 132 dollars doesn't mean the thief stole 132 dollars.  He would be charged with the crime of stealing 50 dollars.

I did not argue that it would make it okay.   I'm merely stating that in this scenario, no money is being taken from the publisher, because the publisher had not way to acquire it.  Therefore, I argue that theft is not the proper term.

Actually, when someone pirates the game, it costs the publisher nothing, not even bandwidth, as the bandwidth is usually taken up by a third party.  That third party is having its bandwidth paid for legally (usually). 

There are a practical infinite number of copies that can be made.  If each copy were to actually have an asset value that is not zero, and since the number of copies is basically infinite (limited I guess by the total hard drive space by the world), then the assets would be worth infinite dollars.  I know of no company that has infinite dollars in assets.

I find that it's often worth it to debate with someone even if you don't think his/her mind will change.  That's because, if I were to guess, the majority of the viewers of the argument are the lurkers, and often, if they haven't said anything, perhaps it's because they are on the fence or aren't certain.

I'm well aware of several instances when I've changed my view on certain subjects, when I've seen two or more people debating with each other even when neither side is giving in.

Resist urge to cite Technomancy from Shadowrun as if it were a real thing. I've been off for too long.