can't speak for everyone else, but you've mentioned two hurdles there.
Not everyone will have 40Gb available
not everyone has 100KB/s upload

Personally, with all the PDFs and other documents i get every day I'm lucky if I keep 5-10Gb free, and 100KB/s upload is twice what my ISP offers at most. Such restrictions won't endear these sorts of networks to most people.

You know, no matter how many times you post it's 'not DRM', the fact will still remain that it was.

I will say this once mire, since it was clearly ignored earlier.
It IS DRM. It is an attempt to MANAGE the RIGHTS of someone using a DIGITAL file. DRM does not just mean 'copy protection', strange as it might seem. The easiest and most common example of non copy-protection is on DVDs - Region Coding.

It's certainly not the first time someone's attempted to play down DRM as not being DRM, and it won't be the last.

What does the certificate do? It manages the rights for the users to use a digital file. That's Digital Rights Management, or DRM.

Other games in the past have used methods to check for cheating, but they only kick in in instances where it's an issue - playing online for instance (the delta force games of 10 years ago is an example I remember well)

When a certificate even prevents you from opening the level editor, that's a bad DRM issue, and it IS DRM. DRM isn't something that restricts for the purpose of restricting, it's using technological methods to control what someone can do with what they've purchased.

Also, if it's easy to patch, why, after 2 days, had they still not managed to work out how?

I don't know Shantih (aka Roze) but a website notoriously run badly isn't it. Perhaps news reports, or TV segments (like this one on the US G4 - formerly techTV - flagship show from 2007 http://g4tv.com/attackoftheshow/blog/post/679293/...

BTW, what have I told you about sockpuppeting?

If it were for multiplayer, it wouldn't be blocking off the editor as well, which by all accounts it does.

There was a wikipedia page, it was later delated and folded into the single main page. The German pirate party (piratenpartei) doesn't have a page either, and they've run in several elections.
Wikipedia is not the sum of all knowledge, just the sum of the knowledge of the people that have time to waste on it, is my opinion.

BTW, over the last 3 years, we've exposed mediadefender's shady practices, initiated FCC hearings into comcast, given the only reliable coverage of the oink case, exposed buckcherry's publicity stunt, Encouraged Toyota to u-turn and fire a lawyer and many more and we've barely got more than a stub.

Wikipedia is usefull for many things, but a measure of notability is it not.

Talking to them (I've known the former US party chairman, now international coordinator for many years) If you want to see about starting a state party in other states, just contact them, and see about working on it together.

No, the ratonal that they're 'safer' is that they're hidden communities, that investigators can't get onto. Utter hogwash, as if you can get onto it, so can they, and they can probably do it easier, with their greater resources. Also, the nature of private sites just makes it easier to gather evidence, so they're easier targets that way.

Safer? nope. For all you know, the tracker might be run by a media group. Honeypot systems have been done before, with scene FTPs you know.

"Or you can join some private trackers - which isn't completely risk-free but does reduce risk to an extent."
yes... remind me again. what has every person so far that's gone to court (and lost) over p2p involving bittorrent, has in common?
Oh yeah, they were on private trackers. Oink, elitetorrents, MovieX.

Isohunt, mininova, piratebay - all at least 4 years old, and still no convictions. So, why do you say these private sites are 'risk reduced' when the evidence says otherwise? I asked if they were safe almost 2 years ago (http://torrentfreak.com/are-private-bittorrent-tr...and you know, still no-one has been able to show any reason that they were.

It also doesn't help that a large number, if not a majority, are run by people with little actual knowledge, relying on rumours according to the reports I've had.