Not everything in an EULA is enforceable. That's why the suits created the DMCA. Since the DMCA doesn't define "effective technological measures," even loading a bitmap from a specific memory location constitutes an effective technological measure--at least, that's the argument Nintendo used to prevent the import of Gameboy cartridge writers.
Regardless, there's a key exception in the act:
(f) Reverse Engineering. -
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.
(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term ''interoperability'' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.
This is US law, of course, but Hyperion and its distributors sell software to US customers.
I'm not exactly sure why software like DeCSS (does anyone even care anymore?) failed in their defense. I'll note that I never heard anyone argue that DVD-Video content is software (it is, which is part of the reason why DVD-Video discs are/were tested for conformance on a wide range of players before being released) and not solely video content.
I've always detested section k for its "automatic gain control" requirement in analog video devices. "Automatic gain control" is Macrovision, and Macrovision is the sole owner and licensor of the technology. So, a US law mandates that all such products sold in the US license and implement technology from a private company, one with ZERO government oversight. I have no idea why an anti-trust case was never pursued.
