Yet not illegal.  It's just another reason why the way videogame makers get paid is broken.

It should be commission based,  the developers should be paid before their product is finished, then be contractually obligated to make the product.

Piracy is stealing. The "take versus copy" argument is invalid and ultimately irrelevant.

Used games are not stealing. A game maker is only entitled to money from any given copy the first time it is sold, just like any other product. You wouldn't think of giving the maker of a piece of furniture some of the money you got from selling it at a yard sale, would you? Why should game makers be any different?

It's not illegal to copy something and personally use it either.

It's only illegal in regards to software, why is software any different?

If I can figure out the ingridents in coke, I can copy and make all the coke i want and coke can't do anything to stop me.

 The reason why it's illegal?

Software is easier to copy.

Why are used games bad?

Software is harder to damage.

Unless it's scratched, a New game is just as valuable as a used game.

While most used products have a decline in quality.

The "personal-use" thing is a drastic oversimplification, and isn't valid in all contexts. Generally, in fact, it is illegal to copy another person's physical product under patent, copyright, and trade-secret laws, with exceptions made in some very narrow cases collectively known as "fair use," but these exceptions do not cover all personal use, nor is it even a subset of personal use as some business cases are also covered.

Not at all.   If I copy rice kripsy treats and keep them in my own house, Kellogs can't do anything about it so long as i don't try and sell it as Rice Krispy Treats.

So long as I have knockoff designer jeans, nobody can arrest me for wearing them.

People can however arrest me for having a "knockoff" videogame.

Nothing stops a third person from copying a "Trade Secret."

Should Pepsi get Coke's secret formula they could make all the "Coke" they wanted, and could even sell it.  Just if they wanted to sell it they couldn't call it coke.

Heck they were even offered Coke's secret recipe a while back but declined and turned the violater in.

While I agree with what you are saying, your coke example is incorrect. That would be similar to reverse engineering a program (which these days can even be illegal too thanks to the DMCA) then creating your own implementation. And of course as Millennium as pointed out patents (copyright isn't an issue in reverse engineering as long as you don't use any of their code, and you can only violate trade secrets if you've signed an NDA) can make a mess of this, however Coke does not have a patent so feel free to try :)

Ok i'll put it this way.

If someone from coke comes to me and gives Pepsi the secret recipe.

Pepsi can still do the same thing.  They have done nothing illegal.

Only the Coke employee has because he has likely signed a trade secret contract.

The difference between other used products and used games is huge. Cars will die at some point. Buying a used one won't change how long that car survives. The discs used for video games will far outlast the console itself as far as how long it will sell. Used games generally take away a much larger profit from game designers then say used cars would. Also chances are if that person who first bought said used car sold their old car. They probably bought another car from the same company. However in games they could have sold that free radical game for a valve game instead.

Speaking of Piracy, SFIV leaked a week early for all those with modded 360's.