The legal basis for an EULA (End User Licensing Agreement) is that an owner of a copyright work has the sole right to permit distribution. An owner can set any conditions he wants for giving permission to obtain a copy of the work or doing any particular thing with it such as copying. A legal contract can be the basis for obtaining permission to make or to receive a copy. It is not clear that owning a copyright allows one to prevent transfer (moving a copy around) rather than copying (increasing the number of copies in existence). Some laws do allow a copyright owner preventing transfer across regions or borders. However, some EULAs do insist the copy attaches to a particular PC or a particular user etc. If that PC or user dies, the copy permission dies with them.
Bruce Willis has copies of iTunes stuff he legally acquired and wants to bequeath to his heirs. iTunes EULA prevents that. If Willis wins the battle to force iTunes to change EULAs, will a precedent be set for M$’s EULA to be trimmed back? Things like number of PCs that can be connected together and phoning home and installation of malware etc. come to mind. This battle could be significant in the war of the operating systems/platforms of IT.
I don’t know any details of Willis’ legal argument but if it’s about not extending copyright protection it’s relevant to software in IT.
I would like to see EULAs for software limited to yes/no permission to have/make a copy/performance rather than attaching conditions to restrain competition. GPL would not be affected because it is not a contract but a licence. EULAs with undue restrictions on use of a copyrighted work should be considered unconscionable invalid contracts. That is a contract must be for a legal purpose and restraint of competition is not a legal purpose. One can argue that copyright law is restraint of competition but it should be narrowly interpreted for the encouragement of content-generators not to create global monopolies extending into every aspect of IT.