You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Publishers and developers can try to say whatever they want in their clickwrap "licenses" (which ironically don't actually grant a license to do anything we don't already have the right to do), like all all licenses and contracts it means absolutely nothing unless 1) the other parties involved consider it a good faith agreement and are willing to abide by its terms or 2) barring 1 a court is willing to uphold and enforce the terms of the agreement. 1 certainly doesn't seem to be true with regards to most people, and 2 is pretty much false with most copyrighted works, and is a mixed bag with few and inconsistent results with regards to software. Again, if you wish to bring laws or court cases to my attention that I'm not aware of then please do so, but just claiming "the EULA says so" means absolutely nothing.
PS- Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus was a case of a publisher basically trying to tack an EULA onto a book saying it couldn't be sold under a certain price. SCOTUS said "no fucking way" to that; is there a reason we should consider software to be fundamentally different with regards to copyright law?
PPS- Thought experiment. I purchase a boxed copy of software, don't install it, don't even open it, and just resell it. Have I purchased it or do you still think I've only licensed it? If the latter, why? If the former, then at what point do I suddenly have my property taken away from me, and what compensation am I receiving to make any agreement removing my property even pass the laugh test?
PPPS- By reading and/or replying to this post you agree to gift me every game on GOG. If this discussion continues I'm expecting to receive a large number of games or an explanation from you on why this "agreement" is the steaming pile of bullshit that it is.

Ok, let me preface this with the fact that I am NOT a professional lawyer. But, no one else seems to be either so that shouldn't matter.
7th and 8th circuit courts uphold ELUA's and the whole licensed and not purchased issue, the others do not. It's a messy messy gray area (in regards to software, nothing else (not movies, music, books, etc. etc.)).
Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway
Blizzard v. BnetD
Baystate v. Bowers (upheld in the federal circuit as well)
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg
Microsoft v. Harmony Computers
Novell v. Network Trade Center
Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc.
All the above cases have some bearing on the upholding of EULA's and licenses in general.
Like I said before it's a VERY VERY messy legal issue, and so far EULA's in general have not been tested by a court of law, but individual EULA's have and did pass that litmus test.

I'm expecting to receive a large number of games or an explanation from you on why this "agreement" is the steaming pile of bullshit that it is.
Here are some reasons: The post in question is not an EULA regarding the license to a product for which the author owns the IP of; in fact, said post is nothing more than the author adding on an idiotic comment. Such idiotic comments rarely tend to get the author a whole bunch of games. The only thing such comments do is water down any point the author was trying to make by making the reader of said comment regard the author as a raving lunatic.

Bigger issue is that he doesn't offer a way to refuse his "license". You could simply state that you don't agree to his terms in which case he is free to remove the post from the forum. If you can't remove the post from a "public" venue then he'd need to take the issue up with those that are preventing him from removing access to said post (GOG staff in this case). Granted the staff will most likely ignore his request in which case he'll have to take them to court over it. This could be interesting. :) (Look back on the issues with MS and it's EULA, when refused MS was forced (in a court of law) to refund the cost of their software because the license was refused, and could not be fully read without first purchasing the software)

many game companies would say, just because you bought it you agreed to their EULA.
That's the point he was trying to make.
EULA's are absolutely ridiculous.

That's one area where the courts have been tested. If you refuse a license you are entitled to a full refund from the company that made the software (note: NOT the store you purchased it from, which is most peoples complaints).

I know. We agree. I am delighted.

Not true, and I can prove it dialectically, and easily.
Ask yourself, if a truck driver hits a farmers barn while driving a truck for TruckerCorp, a multinational company, and *IS* at fault, and causes tens of thousands of dollars in damage, who does the farmer sue?
Obviously, TruckerCorp, since they will have more money.
So, it follows that if selling your game to a third party is illegal, that Ebgames would have been sued AGES ago as being an accessory to/promoting illegal acts.
I buy a disc, I can do what I want with it. Plus, the issue with DD isn't that they can stop you from playing *A* game, it's that they can stop you from playing *ANY* game. Essentially, through tangled webs of legalese (That would likely not hold up in court, BTW), they have removed all tangible value from the "subscriptions" (Read: games) that you purchase.
It will be very interesting to see what would happen if this got brought to a high-level court in the US or Canada. I expect DD would change drastically.

Plus, those sorts of lists are only vallid in the eye of the beholder. Obviously, a conglomeration representing Big Bad Corp A and B's copyrights will rank countries with stricter laws higher, and vice versa. BUT, I point to Russia and others (And Canada fits here to a point) as examples of pure capitalism at work. if your product is obsolete, it fails. That's the natural selection model of capitalism. It's funny that the same conservatives who are all for deregulized markets are ALL FOR strict copyright law. Suing your fans to scare people buying? What would you call that, corporate socialism, corporate facism, or just plain corporatism?

Sorry I didn't address this in my earlier post, which I was just trying to bang out quickly before I had to leave for work. That said, let me start on this by saying: put down the cool-aid and back away from the propaganda. The claim you mention comes from a USTR Special 301 report that was heavily influenced by the IIPA (an American lobby group representing large IP owners), and which has been criticized for unreliability and a lack of objectivity. This shouldn't come as a particular surprise to anyone, given that the IIPA is made up of such pillars of honesty and integrity as the BSA, MPAA, and RIAA. With regards to the report itself, along side Canada, Russia, and China it targets a total of 51 countries including pretty much all of Europe (I think only the UK was left out), and between all those countries encompasses over 70% of the world's population. The IIPA's criticism and the Special 301 report don't say anything meaningful about the countries listed, they only show how out of touch with the rest of the world (and with reality in general) the folks lobbying for stronger IP laws are.
Oh, I'm quite aware of that, hence why I'm not claiming that EULA's should be regarding as invalid, but rather that until a court actually rules on them any terms contained within should be considered pretty much meaningless, nothing more than a wishlist of whoever wrote it. Most of the cases you listed also have special considerations; for instance much of the BnetD case hinged on the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, and in ProCD v Zeidenberg the ruling hinged on the judge's opinion that Zeidenberg could have rejected the EULA by returning the software for a refund (try returning some opened software with rejection of the EULA as your reason some time if you're bored; for bonus points try it with retail software you've ordered online). There are also a fair number of cases that can be cited as direct counter-examples, such as Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse, Softman v. Adobe, and more recently Vernor v. Autodesk (although this one is still ongoing, with both sides recently filing for summary judgment on the appeal).
Aside from case law there's also legislative solutions that are being put into practice. UCITA sought to ammend the Uniform Commercial Code to explicitly allow EULAs and treat software as a licensed product/service, but only Maryland and Virginia have passed the law to date, while Iowa, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Vermont passed laws to preemptively counter UCITA by explicitly defining software as a good that is sold, and last I heard Massachusetts was also considering passing such a law. So to again reiterate, it's a fucking legal mess.
But moving beyond all the legal insanity, when you step back and look at what the practical implications of the whole mess are, as long as the software isn't tied to an account or limited activation service, you own it for all intents and purposes. You can put it up for sale on Amazon, Ebay, Craigslist, etc, and sell it without any objections from anyone. You can loan it out or give it away, you can use it as intended or chop up the CD and turn it into a disco ball. Dig into the legal minutae and things look murky, but step back and look at how the system is working in practice and the "licensed vs sold" issue is actually pretty clear.
Weclock was closest to my intent in putting up that drivel. I was hoping to get you to step away from what can only be described as dogmatism to actually give some thought to the issues at hand. It's unfortunate that you chose to not even address the thought experiment I posed, as I think that would have put us on a more interesting track, but oh well, c'est la vie. To continue a bit with the line of thought you chose, though, my statement wasn't a license of any sort (and neither are EULAs for that matter, once you really take a look at their characteristics), but more akin to a contract, in that it was an offer of terms (gift me games to read or reply to my post vs give up various rights to use the software you just purchased) that as an indication of acceptance used a common action that pretty much anyone would carry out given the circumstances (reading and replying to a post on a public forum vs unwrapping purchased software (for shrinkwrap licenses) or clicking through the necessary buttons to install the software one just bought (for clickwrap licenses)). If you want to continue this exercise and tell me just why my statement was completely worthless bullshit then you may want to take some time to read up on just what the key aspects of a contract actually are and then think about just why my statement utterly fails as any kind of reasonable contract. Or you could try some more mental contortions to try to come to the conclusion that my statement was bullshit but EULAs are perfectly valid and reasonable. Either way it'll be amusing.
Oh, and by the way, a little bit of history on how just EULAs came about. You see, complicated as IP law is, copyright at its essence only addresses one specific think, which its name basically spells out: the right to copy. Copyright restricts the right for everyone but the copyright owner to make copies, reserving that right exclusively for them. It doesn't give the copyright holder any control over what is done with individual copies once they've been sold. Now, back when software was just really getting started, some enterprising lawyer types realized that running software involves making copies, whether it be to the hard drive or into RAM. Holy crap! Copies! Copyright grants control over who is able to legally make copies. So these lawyer types figure that since people who buy software may own the software but will be violating copyright if they actually use said software that those people thus need a license to make those copies necessary to actually run the software. And that they could then attach terms that people must accept if they want to be granted that license. Hence the EULA.
But the funny thing is that even though technology moves fast, the law still slowly catches up with it. As software became more common some congress-critters figured that this little detail really should be better addressed in law, and as a result those of us in the US got Section 117 of 17 USC, which stated that copies made of software during the normal operation of that software are explicitly permitted (and thus no license to actually use the software is required; as another fun bit Section 117 also explicitly says that computer programs can be sold, leased or otherwise transferred). But naturally many of the folks selling software had come to like the extra control their EULAs gave them, so they just decided to pretend that Section 117 didn't exist and continued including EULAs although now they didn't really have any bargaining chip to get people to freely agree to them, so they went with more underhanded methods, first shrink-wrap licenses (you agreed to this license by unwrapping the box that contained it), but after those were slapped down pretty hard by the courts they moved on the click-wrap licenses (if you want to actually use the program you just bought you need to click "I agree" to this massive wall of text we know you didn't read or even care about). And thus where we currently are with such "licenses" (which don't actually grant license to do anything), and with that my little history lesson is over for the day.

Not 100% true. I tried to get Steam to refund my purchases under the same logic, and they refused.

This is off topic and this is getting hostile in nature. I suggest this gets locked and or buried, this is going nowhere fast.

it's still off-topic. And redundant, since you guys discuss this matter repeatedly in separate threads, possibly reiterating the similar points over and over again. I'd suggest you guys make a specific thread for the debate and argue there instead of hijacking every thread that slightly mention Steam.

Except that again, we all know that is never going to happen. Someone will always make a comment about said DD service and it will always end up being discussed. The good thing is, that generally doesn't happen unitl after the topic has been answered.
Which is pretty much the case here too.

Did someone say "Steam?" Grrr!