[Bush2000]

In fact click through licences have generally not been found enforcable. And yes you have a right to use software absent any EULA. You got the legal right because you paid for it. EULA's restrict that right, they don't convey it.

Wrong, totally wrong. And there are many examples that prove you are wrong...

http://www.pcworld.com/resource/printable/article/0,aid,46764,00.asp

"Virtually all software programs, and most Web sites that require registration, offer consumers a EULA or TOS contract. These contracts are legally binding documents that provide information about how the publisher will support the product, and include a disclaimer of liability. They're similar to shrink-wrap licenses for packaged software. Those state that by opening a shrink-wrapped package, you've agreed to abide by the license agreement within. On the Web and in downloaded software, so-called click-wrap agreements require you to click an "I Accept" button located at the end of the agreement before you can use the service or install the software. "Mass-market click-wrap license agreements are inherently 'contracts of adhesion,' meaning the consumer's negotiating power is limited to 'take it or leave it,'" says CPT's Bushnell. He notes that "if you scrutinize the legalese governing many Internet services, the owner is often allowed the ability to change contractual terms without notice to the consumer." Click-wrap has its place, however. Consumers want to download software, and vendors want some way to secure their own licensing rights. "Online agreements are enforceable if they're done right," says Brian Burr, a technology transactions lawyer with the law firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. And just in case there was a lawsuit, software companies have tweaked the user interface of EULA mechanisms to force you to at least try to look at the text. Many EULAs now require a user to scroll through the document to get to the "I Accept" button; some companies require users to click on checkboxes or otherwise indicate that they've read--or at least lingered near--the clauses within."

[B Knotts]

In this case, Adobe's EULA was found to be irrelevant.

[Dinsdale]

Sorry but you will need to find a much more authoritative source then PCworld to convince me of that. You don't read that rag do you?

They have rarely been tested in court (and are betting about .500 when tested). Unreasonable terms like software audits without reasonable notice would do a lot to undermine the agreement. Enterprise agreements are generally actual paper contracts in any case. And you defininitly have the right to use anything you paid for. I don't have any EULA on CDs/DVDs.