Well, you're either part of the solution or part of the problem, and saying "that's the way it is" and moving on is NOT being a part of the solution.
Oh, and you might want to check out the GNU licence. Not everyone is as draconian as the game industry in their terms.
I don't really subscribe to the "part of the solution, or part of the problem" arguments because I don't view everything as a boolean value. If I purchase a game, and find that I dislike it, I consider it X amount of dollars invested in the knowledge that I dislike a bit of software. In the case of a computer game, I don't expect to
ever see any part of that money again. If I dislike a license, I just don't use that software. Generally, the terms of a EULA are written in a "common sense" format- and if you are trying to use the software in a manner other than it was intended, you should probably review the contract you signed.
The majority of the time, when someone is getting in trouble from a EULA, they make it out to sound like they were the victim. If you stop everything, and take a step back, they were clearly in the wrong. Even if what they were doing was
technically legal, it's quite often still morally wrong, or it breaks the
spirit of the rule.
In the military, this kind of action is punishable under Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 134 - General Article; however, in the civilian sector, this kind of behavior is not only acceptable- but even promoted by the peers of the so-called "victim." In many ways, Civilian law is broken beyond all hope of repair; but nobody complains about all of the loopholes that a consumer can punch in a contract. It's only when the company tries to compensate for them, and actually try to make a profit and pay their employees.
There is a story on the internet, very similar to the OP's predicament, regarding Steam. There is a key difference, however, and is the reason that the OP got treated the way he did. Someone made a purchase through Steam. After downloading the game, the purchaser discovered that his computer did not meet the requirements for that game, and tried to get a refund. Steam refused, and the purchaser reported the purchase as fraudulent to PayPal, who halted the transaction. Steam responded by freezing his account. This person then posted his story on the internet to slander Valve.
Now, this all sounds legitimate, right? He made a purchase, it didn't work, and he should be able to return it- right? Wrong. Steam warns you that all purchases are final, and that there will be no refunds. Why? I'll get to that in a minute. The point is, the consumer made a purchase, agreed to forfeit the ability to seek a refund, then tried to get a refund. When Valve held him to his end of the deal, he then tried to circumvent the system by reporting the transaction as fraudulent-- he committed a
crime to get his money back. This is no different than reaching into a cash-register and walking away with that money. Steam responded by freezing his account-- as they said they would, in the EULA.
The reason you can't return games to Steam is because all it takes to turn a "steam" game into a "real" game is to swap the game executable. Your friend buys a (fictional) version of Civ5 that doesn't require Steam to play. You purchase Civ5 on Steam, swap out the executables to make it run without Steam, and "return" the game for a full refund. While EU customers can seek a refund from game-vendors, anyways, US law aggressively protects vendors from consumer fraud; because a consumer can take a game home, copy the CD, and then claim that the game didn't work and get a full refund.
For the average user, who is using software as it was intended to be used, EULA's generally don't interfere with your life. It isn't until you start doing things with software that you wouldn't do in front of the vendor that issues begin to arise. I have never had an issue with following a EULA thus far. As far as I'm concerned, the "problem" isn't the law that protects a company's intellectual property- it's the fact that consumers are constantly looking for ways to "stick it to the man." So long as that trend continues, laws will become more verbose and less forgiving.
All you have to do is look at the welfare system to see how out-of-control the average person's sense of entitlement has become. YOU may not be a lazy, thieving pirate; and if you aren't, good for you. Then YOU aren't the reason the law is the way it is. But there will always be someone out there not only willing, but actively seeking, ways to cheat the system. THESE are the people that cause EULA's and copyright laws to be written the way they are.
However, I'm familiar with the GNU license. However, the vast majority of commercial entities do not sell their products under the GNU license. If you are trying to make a profit, you won't give your software away. If you have employees, you are probably trying to make a profit.
EDIT:
Voluntarily becoming party to agreements you (evidently) think are totally wrong is also not being part of the solution. Also, saying that anyone that disagrees with you is 'part of the problem' is very subjective. I don't agree to things and then gripe that I got screwed. I look at them beforehand, and if I get screwed, then it's A) my fault for not checking into it sufficiently or B) the company is not following the terms of the agreement I agreed to. In this case, it seems that Steam is following their own agreement, so I don't see the issue. As has been covered, the money issue got straightened out by PayPal, so Steam released the hold on things.
Let's face it, getting access to Civ 5 is not a 'right'. Firaxis/2K picked Steam as the delivery platform, and if you want access to their product, that's how you get it. If you think their agreement is wrong, then I guess you don't get access to Civ 5. And yes, that's just the way it is. There's no compelling need for you to have an alternative way to access Civilization 5 other than the way the publisher offers.
The GNU licence is a great thing in an ideal world where no one needs profits of any kind. But it's not set up for *selling* software at all. So, it's really not very relevant here, imo.
I got ninja'd, but this pretty well covers what I was trying to say.
