IANAL
But, I'm pretty sure you're mistaken on this front. I've just read their EULA and there are some issues with it...
First, they can't "summon" you... You can just choose not to go. Contracts are governed by Civil Law, not criminal law, if you were worried about extradition. You'd have to break a criminal law in their country and extradition would involve lawyers and a court here first.
Second, it's a very one-sided contract and judges tend to look down on that kind of agreement. They ask for idemnity from you for any and all civil action and at the same time state that they can sue you and, if defeated, have the right to sue on another point, perpetually. (i.e. if defeated, the rest of the agreement doesn't expire.) This kind of contract is one I've seen the label "Exploitation or Unconscionable Bargain" put too more than once.
Personally, whatever software they sold you... I'd go ahead and download and then circumvent the protection scheme... Which is easy on steam. Am I suggesting you break the law? No, because you have the RIGHT to circumvent for the purposes of ineroperability. See section 1201(f): Circumvention for the purposes of interoperability. If you want to run that game on Linux under WINE, you're covered.
Consult a lawyer first, but I would think that if you really do make an attempt to run it on another platform and document your attempt, then you're butt is covered. Note: There is a section on archival as well.
But, you're right to object to their rediculous contract...
Obsidian:
I don't care what deals you strike with whoever, as long as you own the IP and are doing the development, etc. That said, I have NO INTEREST in Paradox's click-wraps... I expect my backer click-wrap agreement to be with OBSIDIAN, not latecomers to the party.
Actually, my concern has nothing to do with Linux/WINE compatibility. Its purely about what terms companies think that they can impose on consumers who purchase their products.
The majority of their EULAs that I've read specify that consumers can only sue them in Sweden, yet they can sue the consumer "in any court in the world". In writing their EULA, Paradox actually contemplates attempting to compel their consumers to travel the world in order to show up in a court of their convenience and not the consumer's.
Irregardless of whether or not it is legal (thanks for the link, btw; another link on that Wikipedia page took me to the EU legal reference that I needed in regard to this), the fact that Paradox (and they're not alone in this) thinks that they can impose terms upon consumers that, as time passes, are growing so severe that I almost expect them to start requiring first-born children from consumers in exchange for purchasing their products.
Furthermore, such EULAs are difficult to find online ahead of purchase. Combine that with the impossibility of return after finally getting to read that EULA (I actually remember a time when software stores would accept a return because the game didn't work despite a system which met minimum requirements; its been about thirty years since that was the case, about the same time that ARPANET adopted TCP/IP) and with state attorneys general here in the US whose underlings have basically told me that "if it happens completely online, then no law actually applies" or "You have to tell them about your disabilities before you purchase if you wish to invoke the ADA after they change the contract for sale at a later date" when I have attempted to request enforcement of consumer protection laws in the past. Add it all up and I get a bad taste in my mouth any time I contemplate a purchase when I can't read the EULA up front since I no longer have a reasonable belief that consumer protection laws have any teeth.
Its a testament to just how much I want to see a game made that I'll back it on Kickstarter (four in total, and almost a year since the last one was funded), since it is yet another circumstance where I can't read that EULA up front.
TL/DR: When the government enforces click-through EULAs but refuses to enforce consumer protection laws, the fact that a license term is legally unconscionable becomes irrelevant.
IANAL But, I'm pretty sure you're mistaken on this front. I've just read their EULA and there are some issues with it... First, they can't "summon" you... You can just choose not to go. Contracts are governed by Civil Law, not criminal law, if you were worried about extradition. You'd have to break a criminal law in their country and extradition would involve lawyers and a court here first. Second, it's a very one-sided contract and judges tend to look down on that kind of agreement. They ask for idemnity from you for any and all civil action and at the same time state that they can sue you and, if defeated, have the right to sue on another point, perpetually. (i.e. if defeated, the rest of the agreement doesn't expire.) This kind of contract is one I've seen the label "Exploitation or Unconscionable Bargain" put too more than once. Personally, whatever software they sold you... I'd go ahead and download and then circumvent the protection scheme... Which is easy on steam. Am I suggesting you break the law? No, because you have the RIGHT to circumvent for the purposes of ineroperability. See section 1201(f): Circumvention for the purposes of interoperability. If you want to run that game on Linux under WINE, you're covered. Consult a lawyer first, but I would think that if you really do make an attempt to run it on another platform and document your attempt, then you're butt is covered. Note: There is a section on archival as well. But, you're right to object to their rediculous contract... Obsidian: I don't care what deals you strike with whoever, as long as you own the IP and are doing the development, etc. That said, I have NO INTEREST in Paradox's click-wraps... I expect my backer click-wrap agreement to be with OBSIDIAN, not latecomers to the party. Actually, my concern has nothing to do with Linux/WINE compatibility. Its purely about what terms companies think that they can impose on consumers who purchase their products. The majority of their EULAs that I've read specify that consumers can only sue them in Sweden, yet they can sue the consumer "in any court in the world". In writing their EULA, Paradox actually contemplates attempting to compel their consumers to travel the world in order to show up in a court of their convenience and not the consumer's. Irregardless of whether or not it is legal (thanks for the link, btw; another link on that Wikipedia page took me to the EU legal reference that I needed in regard to this), the fact that Paradox (and they're not alone in this) thinks that they can impose terms upon consumers that, as time passes, are growing so severe that I almost expect them to start requiring first-born children from consumers in exchange for purchasing their products. Furthermore, such EULAs are difficult to find online ahead of purchase. Combine that with the impossibility of return after finally getting to read that EULA (I actually remember a time when software stores would accept a return because the game didn't work despite a system which met minimum requirements; its been about thirty years since that was the case, about the same time that ARPANET adopted TCP/IP) and with state attorneys general here in the US whose underlings have basically told me that "if it happens completely online, then no law actually applies" or "You have to tell them about your disabilities before you purchase if you wish to invoke the ADA after they change the contract for sale at a later date" when I have attempted to request enforcement of consumer protection laws in the past. Add it all up and I get a bad taste in my mouth any time I contemplate a purchase when I can't read the EULA up front since I no longer have a reasonable belief that consumer protection laws have any teeth. Its a testament to just how much I want to see a game made that I'll back it on Kickstarter (four in total, and almost a year since the last one was funded), since it is yet another circumstance where I can't read that EULA up front. TL/DR: When the government enforces click-through EULAs but refuses to enforce consumer protection laws, the fact that a license term is legally unconscionable becomes irrelevant.