Under the terms of the license. Look at the GPL -- it doesn't even say it's an agreement, it's a license with terms. The BSD license doesn't even contain the word "agreement." The fact that Microsoft stuck the word "agreement" in theirs means nothing.
The point is apparently morphing into your refusal to consider the EULA a binding contract.
Of course I refuse, because it isn't a contract. That doesn't make violating it any less punishable though.
You agree to pay the license fee and not redistribute the software, et cetera et cetera, and in exchange you are granted a use license for their software. You do not "own" the software, you are granted a license, and bound by contract for that license to be valid.
Actually, I paid the license fee before I even saw the EULA, before I opened the box and installed the software. My implied contract with Best Buy was where the money changed hands. After that, you were doing well until you said "bound by contract." You are not, you are simply in violation of copyright law if you do something not allowed in the license.
That's bad enough, given that statutory damages are now up to $150,000 per willful infringement (you read the EULA and disregarded, or did something obviously infringing like copying) and $30,000 per negligent infringement (you didn't know reverse-engineering was prohibited in the EULA because you didn't read it). And unlike a contract case, it would be very easy for Microsoft to win because the law is stacked in favor of the copyright holder.
I very much doubt that you can find even one single case where a license agreement was tossed out because of its one-sidedness - the best you'll find is that agreements have been voided because they're unclear.
Of course not. A license can be as one-sided as the author wishes. You have no right to use the copyrighted work, and acceptance of the license under any conditions is the only thing allowing you to use it. It is only contracts that cannot be one-sided.
Let's say I'm a very poor guy who goes to the library and looks up some books in the catalog, running Windows -- Windows is my only choice, that library is my only source of books. I play with the system and violate the EULA ("End User License Agreement", and I'm an end-user). Microsoft decides to sue under breach of contract instead of copyright violation. I can show the judge how tiny little me is being sued by gigantic corporation, and that the EULA consists almost entirely of clauses limiting my rights and waiving any liability for Microsoft. Any judge would see that as an adhesion contract and break it. The resulting precedent would be devastating for Microsoft, and indeed any software license/contract.
The same thing can be done with poor little me wanting certain government documents only available in PDF, and violating a PDF reader license. I didn't realistically have the option of avoiding a license.
You seem to be stuck back in the 60s when pretty much all licenses were done under contract. The contracts have gone away in the mass software market because the companies can't afford to make a contract with each of the millions of users, and most users aren't ready to hire lawyers to negotiate that contract. Yes, negotiation, part of an enforceable express contract and something plainly missing from EULAs.
Oh? Let's look at one. The EULA for this machine contains the following clause:
10. EXPORT RESTRICTIONS. Export-Restricted Encryption. If the Product is identified as "North America Only Version," the following terms apply: The Product contains strong encryption and cannot be exported outside of the United States (including Puerto Rico, Guam and all other territories, dependencies and possessions of the United States) or Canada without a U.S. Commerce Department export license or an applicable license exception. You agree that you will not directly or indirectly export or re-export the Product (or portions thereof), other than to Canada, without first obtaining an export license or determining that a license exception is applicable. For additional information see http://www.microsoft.com/exporting/.
So, I take this "North America Only Version" with me to Cuba, and I don't bother with an export license, nor do I determine if a license exception is applicable. I have now violated the license. On what grounds will Microsoft invalidate my license? Hint: I haven't committed copyright violations here - copyright law says nothing about exporting to Cuba.
In fact, I've breached the contract that this clause is a part of. Microsoft can invalidate my license, even though I didn't violate its copyright, because that EULA is a legal, binding contract between me and Microsoft - a contract I have breached, which allows them to terminate my license for no living up to my end of the deal.
Sorry, it's not all about copyright violations. Your license is revocable even if you don't violate Microsoft's copyright, precisely because this is a license contract, not simply a finger-wagging speech about "don't violate our copyrights".
Let's say I'm a very poor guy who goes to the library and looks up some books in the catalog, running Windows -- Windows is my only choice, that library is my only source of books. I play with the system and violate the EULA ("End User License Agreement", and I'm an end-user).
No, you're not. The library is the end user, not you - they paid the license fee and they have the license, not you.