[Windows Phone 8 General] GoodDayToDie:
[MENTION=4622571]mcosmin222[/MENTION]: While I normally hesitate to inject politics into an online discussion, I feel compelled to point out two things:

1) Your interpretation of copyright law is *extremely* generous (to the copyright cartels, not to yourself or any of us) and basically ignores a number of issues such as fair use, right of first sale, etc. In practice, even within the software industry, EULAs and TOS are almost never legally enforceable. Lawyers include them anyhow as they provide a view of the publisher's intentions, but in court, if you can demonstrate that you purchased the software without signing a legally-binding contract (i.e. not an EULA or similar), the developer and/or publisher generally have no legal right to prevent you from using it. Copyright only comes into it if you are re-distributing the software (this is how Apple sued Pystar, for example: redistribution of Apple's software updates. Simply suing over the terms which require that OS X only be installed on Apple hardware would almost certainly have failed).

2) Related to #1 but more political and less legal: that point of view is *extremely* anti-customer (excuse me, anti-"consumer" because calling them customers implies they actually bought something, doesn't it?) and, in my opinion, quite unethical. To fail to oppose it is to support an unconsciousable erosion of property rights. We already have terms for an exchange of money for goods which does not transfer ownership (in the case of copyrighted goods, that is ownership of the copy not of the copyright itself): "rental" or "lease". To say that when I have "purchased an app" I have instead merely "purchased" a revocable license controlled by the person I am nominally purchasing from is subvert the entire concept of a purchase.

Unfortunately, the erosion of our rights that began when the copyright cartels began attempting to claim that intellectual property both is and is not actually property to suit their purposes of the moment (it is property when the question is if it can be stolen, it is not property when the question concerns whether or not it is sold...), although it largely failed in the conventional retail software world, opened the door to the wholesale assault on (intellectual) property rights exemplified by DRMed app "stores" - so-called "stores" that, according to their legalese, don't actually sell anything at all and merely use the terminology of a purchase because it's familiar.

My approach to "buying" DRMed products is very simple: I don't. If I can buy a DRM free version instead, I will do that. If I can get DRMed products for free, I will do that (I've got lots of free apps on my phone). I'm not opposed to the presence of DRM in transactions which are inherently of a rental nature, like Netflix or Zune Pass. Beyond that, though... I buy my PC games on Humble Bundle and GOG, not Steam. I don't buy music or video or e-books online unless they are in a DRM-free format. While my copies of Windows (and Office and Visual Studio and so on) are legitimately licensed, I do not respect Microsoft's claim that they have the right to deny me those products which I have purchased, any more than I would the concept that the manufacturer of my car (which is fully paid off) has the right to re-possess it from me.

Oh, and to loop back to the subject of apps vanishing from the "store": and preventing you from re-installing them: if it's within a reasonably short period, you can just about guarantee getting your money back if you raise a fuss at MS. The question of how *much* of a fuss is an interesting one, and may depend on the strength or indeed presence of any customer/consumer protection laws, but if the amount of money isn't completely trivial it's probably worthwhile.