The real question here is how legally binding is a EULA. This is the problem that the courts are fighting with in each of these cases. By installing a piece of software on various machines, technically does not violate any laws with regard to Intellectual Property or Copyright infringement. Now in some cases it does violate the EULA of the software, but the EULA's have been challenged in courts and most the cases the software manufacturer have lost. The EULA is just a bunch of jargon from the manufacturers lawyers of what they would like to have you follow. They make you click the little button and state you are agreeing to the EULA. This part of the problem, they can write whatever they want into the EULA. That doesn't mean it's actually right or even legally binding in some cases. If the software EULA stated that it is only allowed to run on a particular brand machine with a certain speed processor, is it illegal for you to install it on something other then what they want you to if it works? Probably not, they might not give you support for it, but you did purchase the software and legally you can attempt to install it on what ever you want regardless of the EULA. I know that's a bit extreme but the meaning is about the same. Just because they say in the EULA that you are only allowed to install this product on a single machine, doesn't mean that it is technically correct. I'm not promoting piracy in any form. He's obviously purchased the legally and has a right to use his software. So it is a very large ethical question on how binding you view the EULA and whether you agree with what the vendor has wrote in there.

I actually thought the $80 controller was a fairly good balance to this. Most software companies that I know allow you to purchase additional licences at a reduced cost if you already own the software. This is normally to show the difference in not having to purchase physical media again. Since GP has unofficially turned that silly controller into their software key since you can't run the software without, that seemed like a reasonable expenditure for an additional license.

PS: I have plenty of ethics. I've been doing Data Security for a international financial company for over 10 years and have done a good bit of research into EULA and Copyrights. In the corporate world there is a lot stricter area, since the software is distributed openly to 1000's of users. For personal use though there is alot of grey matter between legal and illegal with regrads to this. Everyone has to make up their own mind on what they think.