No I am not American, it doesn't matter where you live, it's illegal. He may own the DVD, but not what is on it, he like everybody else gets a license to use it
I repeat, it's not "illegal", here, despite what you wrote, which is wrong.
If you're not American, why do you spell "license" with an 's'?
Microsoft and other EULAs are not even completely upheld by many US courts.
The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court in which the case is heard. Most courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found them to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C. —see, for instance, Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology (939 F.2d 91), Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd. (at harvard.edu) and Rich, Mass Market Software and the Shrinkwrap License (23 Colo. Law 1321.17). A minority of courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license agreement is valid and enforceable: see ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg (at findlaw.com), Microsoft v. Harmony Computers (846 F. Supp. 208, 212, E.D.N.Y. 1994), Novell v. Network Trade Center (at harvard.edu), and Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc. may have some bearing as well.
The 7th Circuit and 8th Circuit subscribe to the "licensed and not sold" argument, while most other circuits do not. In addition, the contracts' enforceability depends on whether the state has passed the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) or Anti-UCITA (UCITA Bomb Shelter) laws. In Anti-UCITA states, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) has been amended to either specifically define software as a good (thus making it fall under the UCC), or to disallow contracts which specify that the terms of contract are subject to the laws of a state that has passed UCITA.
Recently, publishers have begun to encrypt their software packages to make it impossible for a user to install the software without either agreeing to the license agreement or violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and foreign counterparts.
The DMCA specifically provides for reverse engineering of software for interoperability purposes, so there was some controversy as to whether software license agreement clauses which restrict this are enforceable. The Eighth Circuit case of Blizzard v. BnetD determined that such clauses are enforceable, following the Federal Circuit decision of Baystate v. Bowers.
That's just the USA.
In Great Britain, where consumer law broadly follows European Union norms, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 lay down that terms not individually negotiated in a consumer contract are unfair and hence non-binding. The EULA comes after the sale. Microsoft [for example] has no special exemption from contract law. Contracts don't come into force PRIOR to them being agreed.
I appreciate that Microsoft wishes it can - AFTER THE SALE - substitute a contract which overrides UK or European contract law, but the plain fact is that it cannot.
Thus, the following statement is howlingly incorrect, even within the USA, and even more so outside of it. Suck it up.
it doesn't matter where you live, it's illegal
Finally, it seems to me stupid and cowardly to call the violation of an (actually invalid) commercial contract "illegal" and then hope to intimidate people into feeling that they have committed a criminal act when they have not.
