How does an after fact of someone's supposed illegal activity become itself illegal in a case like this? Especially in Brazil if I'm assuming correctly.
I never heard of a case declaring a non-circumvent tool to be illegal just because it may indirectly rely on people dumping it first. If so, then even project64 would be illegal too as bypassing a physical cartridge was ruled to also bypass copy protection.
Also the tool was in another specific country, which I heard doesn't have copy protection laws so the idea that it itself becomes illegal because of the actions in another country sounds even more silly.
Technically, not all EULAs are evil, but most of them as far as I know are, at least partly.
The nature of many EULAs is mainly to take away rights people would normally have without contract law. The most offensive part of what is likely a typical EULA is that it tries to gain personal property rights (No, not IP rights, I mean ACTUAL physical property rights) over what you should morally own. This not only gets around the copyright limitation, but if enforceable, they can legally stop you from doing what you lawfully want involving real property rights, even having nothing to do with IP rights.
A lot of people never understand that I think, and as someone who researched this so many times, that's likely what these things usually try to do, and it's depressing when you think about it.
Some might say that you need a proper EULA to lawfully use lawful software, but that's actually not true. Copyright limitations in many places takes care of that (e.g. RAM doctrine), and it's already proven that manylawful proprietary software being sold without a EULA worked out. The main nature of a EULA is to bypass the law in favor of more control.
Many FOSS licenses only grants you certain rights that you normally don't have assuming I'm remembering right. Even if you lost those licenses, at least your regular default certain rights are there, unless there was a separate thing taking those away too.
I never heard of a case declaring a non-circumvent tool to be illegal just because it may indirectly rely on people dumping it first. If so, then even project64 would be illegal too as bypassing a physical cartridge was ruled to also bypass copy protection.
Also the tool was in another specific country, which I heard doesn't have copy protection laws so the idea that it itself becomes illegal because of the actions in another country sounds even more silly.
I am not a lawyer by the way.