It's all a matter of perspective.  Personally I think it's insane you need to agree to lengthy legal jargon just to play a game regardless of when it's presented.  I can't wait until I have to sign a licensing agreement to acquire a loaf of bread.

Also, I see those as incredibly similar to the warning labels placed on food / drinks.  They are there specifically to prevent lawsuits over seemingly obvious issues

All the games I have currently bought I could sell at will.  But if I were to buy Civ5 I would not be able to sell the game.  If I was caught selling that game (it is practical for them catch you because of new DRM methods), steam can lock out my account, preventing me from playing ANY of the games I have on their service.  I cannot buy Civ5 without also using steam.  That's one of a few reasons why I will never have any games on steam.  Not because of any value I place on a right of first sale; but because I resist that level of control over consumer.  And because I don't trust that human or mechanical error will not mistakenly take away my right to use a software license that I have legally purchased.  I don't want a watchdog between me and my purchased products.

So, the age of enforcing software license agreements is here.  So what kind of protections can consumers expect...  Is the government gonna dictate refund policy to vendors, or will they force publishers to print EULA warnings on software packaging.  I don't see either of those options being practical.  I suppose nothing will get done until after a costly string of lawsuits and counter suits.  And even then, are those steps even practical?  And whats to protect consumers from being forced to renew their license agreements after an unannounced period of time?  steams EULA is specifically written such that they have the ability to charge a second fee for the software they host.  steams EULA gives them the right to deny users access to purchased licensees for ANY reason.  And the way that steam has been set-up, grants them the ability to block users access to the software licensees they have purchased.   In some cases.... Buying software = agreeing to the EULA.  Agreeing to the EULA = accepting an unspecified loss of consumer rights.  Loss of consumer rights = ???

The Ninth Circus may have finally gotten one right.

Most EULAs do not have such a provision - and for good reason.  People want at least the appearance of ownership.  For the few that do state it, they better have the market cornered (as AutoCad seems to), or they will find themselves the 21st century version of Lotus.

Glass half empty.

The EULA IS the 'consumer rights'.  There is therefore no 'loss'.

Now, whether or not those rights differ from those of some other product is a different question.

People see EULAs as some signing away of your life - to the devil/whatever.  It IS no such thing as there is a fully legitimate and legal alternative.

Do NOT sign/accept/agree/purchase.

That is the ENTIRE 'rights' issue in a nut-shell.

Either the desired product is indespensible and the conditions of purchase are acceptable....or it isn't and they aren't.

End of.

Yes Jafo; and the latest exercise my rights have gotten, was to not purchase Civ5 because I did not agree with steams EULA.  Bummer to miss that fun, but it was by choice not force.  I get that.  I'm talking actual consumer protections here. Some of my concerns with EULA:

1) None of the software I have recently purchased, has a EULA which could not be accessed pre-sale.  In my experience, brick and mortar vendors will not refund an opened product unless it is defective.  And even then they will offer replacement instead of refund.  There are exceptions but that is the norm in my country.  So, I am in situations where I have to purchase product before I can read the EULA.  If I choose to not accept the terms, then I have wasted money on a product I cannot use. The company makes a sale, the consumer receives no usable product.

2) Many, if not all of the EULA's I have read are worded to give the seller rights to amend the agreement without notification, and without refund of purchase price ifthe new terms are unacceptable.  In general, I think EULA's are vague as to any buyers recourse, while being specific as the producers rights.  I have seen little of the buyer protection you speak of.

...

Ahh I gotta get working. No more time for this.

Briefly...  I want protection from hidden fees.  I don't want to lose access to product I purchased unless I do something inappropriate.  I want assurance that if a product does not do its job that I will be refunded the purchase price.  I want to know EXACTLY what buyer information will be recorded and shared.  Ahh.  ... I just want the barter to go proper.  If the law prevents me from breaking the arms of someone who does me wrong, then the law must be prepared to make it right.

This is the one "expected" to be appealed right?