Tried that, I think this computer is missing the record of the cd key; steam lists it as installed, but it fails to start (error code 80). I think attempting to reinstall it from the disk's autorun might fix the problem, but I haven't gotten around to trying yet.

On the other hand, I, as a customer, should be able to read the agreement BEFORE payment is made, OR be able to get a full refund when I do not accept the terms. How many stores fully refunds returned software where the plastic wrapping has been broken and I could easily have made a copy? How about a downloaded copy, where there is nothing to return, but we still cannot read the agreement before payment?
Not that I have ever returned any piece of software simply because I do not agree with the license, rather I have accepted the fact that I signed something I didn't read and have to suffer the consequences (up to a point).

And you're quite correct about that. The validity of EULAs is something that the courts have ruled every which way on, with no overarching precedent (although generally they seem to take the approach the the EULA is on its face valid, then start invalidating some or all based upon the specifics of the case). I'd never meant to imply that because of the Vernor decision one should believe that the courts will regard all software as sold, just that a company writing in their EULA that the software is licensed, not sold, doesn't mean anything until a court upholds it, which there is no guarantee that they will do.
This is why I generally prefer not to get bogged down in arguing whether or not games are licensed or sold in terms of legal theory, but rather prefer to simply look at how the relevant parties treat the transaction in practice.

I think that there's one thing we can all agree on... when it comes to software and the legal system it's a complete mess.
From code patents to licensing vs. purchasing, and EULA's... not even our courts are sure where the truth and law lay.

So the whole time you were telling me boxed retail games do not have contracts or agreements you accept, and that you OWN the game and can do what you want with it, you were speaking from a position of legal theory on your part, not of fact? You were actually outright stating facts you knew were not true, i.e. there is no agreement when you buy retail, in order to be clear on your theoretical legal challenge of an EULA?
Good to know.
As pointed out very clearly, every game and piece of media you have ever played was licensed to you. Common sense tells you that you do not own a multi-million dollar game. You can argue this needs to be tested further in court, but the simple fact is courts will uphold these principles if past copyright verdicts are anything to go by.
And yes, some license agreements allow for resale, and I never stated otherwise. My comment was that they SHOULD not, not that they DO not.

Do you feel the same way about books?

Books are so completely different from games, both in experience and in market, and how both of those are changed in the digital age, that it's not really a worthwhile comparison.

Can't you really make out the difference between the 'multi-million' dollar copyrighted material used to produce millions of copies of a game (the licensed part mentioned in every EULA that will never be yours) and each of the game copies themselves (the sold part that it's definitely yours) ?
What do you think people holding the rights of a a particular game want to accomplish with all the EULA's and licensing talk ?
To establish ownership of the files on your DVD/installed files on your HD? Or to establish ownership of the copyrighted material contained in those files to make sure that you can't legally distribute for free or make a profit from that material ?
And the fact that i own the copy of the game i bought doens't translate into i can do whatever i want with it. In fact it's the other way around. I'm extremely limited in what i can do with this particular property of mine but make no mistake about it, it's mine.

+1
It may even be the case that the restrictions on used games - due to technologies like Steam Activation or digital distribution - are contributing to the decline of big-budget PC games. To quote the CEO of Stardock, who's always ready with a quote about PC gaming:
"Right now, if I pay $50 for a PC game and play it for a few weeks, I'm out $50. As a result of that, people don't tend to buy as many PC games, because they have to be really, really sure they're going to like it. On a console, you don't have nearly that issue because you can trade games back and forth with your friends."
Also, this [url=http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=define:caveat+emptor&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8]caveat emptor[/url] discussion bothers me.
It really should be simple to go back to a retailer - digital or brick-and-mortar - and say "my software didn't work", even if it's because you didn't use a magnifying glass to read the fine print.
And if it weren't for the current problems with online activations and DRM, it would be much easier for those retailers to say "oh, no problems, here's your money back", and package the product for resale.

I was coming at the matter from a practical standpoint at the beginning of the discussion, although we then veered into the kind of legal discussion I had initially intended to avoid. I'll fully admit that I didn't differentiate my statements regarding practical vs legal positions to an adequate degree, and apologize for any confusion that may have caused. However, I should also point out that most of our discussion was about copyrighted goods in general (with software EULAs coming in specifically only at the very end), and with regards to ownership of copyrighted works in general I stand by all my previous statements, and shall explain momentarily.
Survey says you should actually read up on past copyright decisions before demonstrating your woeful level of ignorance. A fairly recent one is UMG v. Augusto, where even though promo CDs were clearly marked that they could not be resold the court ruled that the person who legally possessed the CDs owned them and was free to resell them, and that UMG had no right to restrict such a sale. A similar recent decision involving patents is Quanta v. LG Electronics. Now if you want to go back to the very beginning of the first-sale doctrine you can read up on Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus. This was also reaffirmed specifically in the case of DVDs in NEBG v Weinstein. So despite your uninformed assertions, the matter of ownership and right to resell copyrighted works is pretty clearly established for almost all copyrighted works. It's only in the specific case of software and EULAs that courts are having trouble making up their minds. So do you own and can you resell copyrighted works in general? Hell yes. For copyrighted software? It depends. On what? A whole shitload of things, and you have pretty much no chance of making an accurate prediction at the moment until your specific case ends up in court. That's from a legal perspective; from a practical perspective you own any software that's not tied to a service and you're perfectly free to resell it.
And now that that's finished with hopefully there will be no further need to discuss legal theory, as settled legal matters are boring and unsettled legal matters have little practical application in a general sense.

I'm sure we could argue about copyright law and the definition of ownership all day. Namur has assured me that the game files on my computer are legally owned by me. I'm no lawyer so I won't dispute what he is saying. I do feel that with digital files you have to have copyright ownership to have true ownership of the files. If you don't own the copyright, you don't have complete control of the files. Of course that's totally subjective.
I do have a question for the legal experts. There could potentially be many users of a single copy of software that is installed on one computer. Since the EULA is only presented once during installation, what proof is there that you accepted the EULA (I mean it could have been your spouse, younger brother, cat, etc.)? How do the other users of the software fit in with the EULA?

This one one of the (many) unsettled legal issues with EULAs, and as far as I know no case to date has dealt with this issue of EULAs. However, there are some cases that are somewhat clear cut if we assume EULAs to be valid in general (big assumption, bear with me). If the EULA is agreed to through a mechanism under your control (and getting your cat to click "accept" would count as such) then it's the same as if you agreed to it, similarly if you ask another person to accept it in your stead (they're basically be acting as your agent in that case). With regards to terms applying to individuals other than the person who agreed to the license this would depend heavily on the specific terms and would likely be settled on a case by case basis.

It should be obvious that the EULA is a contract of adhesion. You're being forced to click the damned thing. If you don't click the EULA, you generally can't install the software (that's how they know).
Some places don't recognize this. Generally this is because large software companies have significantly more expensive and weasel-y lawyers than the companies suing them and they employ very complicated, very technical arguments worthy of a Jesuit. Also, judges are generally old WASPs who do not know how to turn on computers, so muddying the waters is markedly more effective than in other kinds of civil cases.
Here's the other thing - in theory there's no difference on the license/ownership front with digital distro. In practice, license vs. ownership is meaningless when you own a hard copy (except for backups/archives). As the recent kindle snafu showed us, it's anything but meaningless with digital products/downloads. You can literally have your product recalled.
Possession is 9/10ths..... And boy has that changed, especially with some of these new DRMs.

The last thig i intended was to misrepresent myself, so to clarify i'm no lawyer and i'm no legal expert either.
What i stated is nothing more than my own opinion on the matter so please feel free to disput anyhting i said.
On the matter of property, to me there's a clear distinction between installers (retail and/or digital) and game files placed on your HD upon installation, and the copyrighted material contained in all those files.
What you say about control, you sure have control over the Witcher files on your HD. You can leave them on your HD for the next 20 years or you can end their digital life cycle tommorow by deleting them if you want to. What you don't have is control over the copyrighted material contained in those files outside the scope of the EULA and IP/CP laws.
As for your question, i assume that what counts is the user account (on the OS) where the software is installed. If i accept the EULA and install some software on my user account on my PC and then let you use that installation of the software, i'm doing so at my own risk. Any potencial legal problems originated by you using the software (with or without you having knowledge of the terms of the EULA) would always be my responsability, not yours.