I think your concern is misguided. If someone cannot get a refund per the EULA, and they have not agreed to the EULA, then they are not bound by it.
This is about taking accountablility and responsibility for one's own agreement, not piracy.
If Micorsoft forfeits the EULA, then nobody is in violation of it.
If someone pays for the software, but cannot get a refund, they should be entitled to do whatever they want to do with it, if they have made a good faith effort at returning it per the EULA.
If you call that Piracy, then I would be proud to see the Linux community promoting just that. Nothing matters to anyone until it effects the wallet. All the yelling, screaming, and protesting in the world will not do a damn thing, but if MS thinks the invalidation of the EULA will effect licensing fees, you can bet they will take notice.
I don't see how this makes the Linux community look bad at all.
Forcing someone to adhere to their portion of an agreement, under the penalty of rendering that agreement invalid, is not something anyone should be ashamed of.