Wishbone: Well, I disagree. It's very different to have bought something perfectly legally as part of a package deal than to have acquired that same something through undeniably illegal means.
The point isn't how you aquired it, the point is what you have. Something digital is
nothing but a license. You can't hold on to it, your rights to it are fluent. As of this moment, many of us own digital artwork/music, etc to which we have no legal right to actually have it. We can still use it and nobody can charge us for doing so. But if we lose it, we have no right to get it back. If it would be possible to remove it externally, they could do it, because it is
their right. They are the right holder, essentially your right to any digital protuct needs a "legal chain" back to the right holder to be "valid". The moment eg. GOG has no right to give us a song anymore that chain is broken and with it the legal right of you to have this.
That is, of course, a very sturdy chain and it is usually protected by airtight contracts and laws, but it can and has happened.
And in the end, it doesn't matter were or how you got that digital stuff, but only if the chain is still intact.
That is also the reason most (if not all) anti piracy law isn't aimed at the actual "having the software" but acquiring it. You can't punish people for having unlicensed stuff, because how should or could they now in many cases?
Gersen: In Amazon case they made the "mistake" of saying that you buy a "permanent" copy, I have yet to see a single video game distributor EULA (or mobile application store) ever saying the same thing.
This is exactly why Steam has the "remove game" stuff in their EULA. Not because they want to remove games, but because they might have to and want avoid damages from consumers. You still get a refund, but not damages, which can make a whole lot of difference.