This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Luckily the EULA doesn't apply when obtaining it through unauthorized means since the EULA would never have been accepted upon a purchase that didn't happen.
(It is though copyright infringement, but you still have more ownership over the bytes on your own disk since DRM would have been removed or neutered)
Old school was "shrinkwrap eula".
When you took the literal shrinkwrap off the box, you agreed.
Then it switched to "use eula" and the box that pops up containing the EULA that says "click to accept" and there's no other option but to accept...
That's the point you agree.
I don't think it's ever been "at purchase" at least in America. Because obviously gifts are a thing and purchasers aren't always users and more importantly users aren't all purchasers
A cracked game might circumvent those popups and/or screens, but I honestly don't know why they would put the effort in or if it would matter. And if it mattered probably varies a lot by country.
EU is very adamant that you can only present contractual terms before entering an agreement (purchase) not after. All those EULAs showing up in the game before you are shown the main menu are void in EU.
If the EULA is instead embedded in the purchase flow with an "I agree" checkbox then the UsedSoft vs. Oracle case is likely still precedence to argue that you own the copy. Reason is that the purchase flow uses the "Buy" terminology and nowhere outside of the EULA it mentions rental/lease/limited/etc. This would breach the "reasonable consumer expectations" as the storefront didn't make it clear in their purchase experience that it was only a limited license you obtained and that a normal consumer doesn't expect "limited" when reading "Buy". This part has though not been tested in court yet but most legal scholars agree that this would be the likely outcome should someone bring it up.
Sony’s EULA has always said this.
EULA's have been saying it since before discs were invented...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement
If any EULA didn't say that, everyone who bought it could sell their own copies for $1 less then they bought it. Eventually the price of every piece of software no matter what it was, would be the hosting costs based on sheer size.
What's wild is so many people never knew this, and are hyper fixated on the wrong part.
Back in the day updates just weren't really a thing. There may be additional software (DLC except you bought it physical) in between editions, but for the most part the program was the program. So as long as you kept your install discs, you could always install that program.
That is what you were buying, the physical means to install the program, and that has always been just a license and definitely not duplicatable. Selling used games/software was valid because you're handing over the physical means to install/run that software.
The parallel would be selling a "used digital game" and it disappears from your library. And Sony could even take 10% or whatever as a fee, even tho it would cost money.
Consumers could trust that any used game was 100% the exact same as new tho, there's be zero advantage to every buying new if a single used license was cheaper.
That would be free market capitalist software, but the oligarchs don't want.
