Re: Never mind the flaw, look at the *pattern*.
If you violate the EULA, you lose the right to utilise the copy-right for the software.
Thus anything past that point is illegal usage of the software, because you don't have a licence to use it (and you can argue until the cows come home, but usage of software is legally classed under "making a copy of").
No different to how the GPL is enforced - if the software is only licensed under the GPL, and you violate the GPL, you violate the only agreement that gives you any rights whatsoever to the software. Hence, you have no rights to the software. Hence you've broken the law.
The only people who can change that are the ones who licensed it to you in the first place - by choosing to offer you another licence, another chance, overlooking your violations, etc. or otherwise giving you explicit permission to continue using the software.
Software use is a right (literally, a "copy-right") given to you by the creators of the software that describe how you may use it. If you fail to abide by their rules, or don't agree with them - then you have as many rights to the software as anyone else does... zero. The "purchase" and acceptance of an EULA is the only thing that gives you the right to use/copy the software in the first place.
There are complications (e.g. unfair contract terms, having to execute code in order to accept the agreement, etc.) which make what a lawyer would call "interesting questions" (i.e. gimme a few grand and I'll think about how I'd argue it in court, no guarantee of success). But pretty much you abide by the EULA or you literally have no right to the software whatsoever.
Don't believe the hype that EULAs are unenforceable either. It's not that simple. It's like saying that a tiny flaw in one particular huge contract makes the whole concept of contracts unenforcable. It's not true. And pretty much there's a clause that says "If one thing in this contract isn't allowed, all the rest still apply anyway" (and, amazingly, it doesn't even NEED to say that... that's very much a "your statutory rights are not affected" statement... of course they're not... they're STATUTORY rights...).