Without making comments on the merits of this case, I'd point out you're comparing apples to oranges.
The copyright isn't for the physical CD/DVDs themselves. The copyright is for the intellectual property that is contained on the CD/DVDs. That intellectual property, and the functionality that it represents, is what is copyrighted.
When you buy a car, you are buying - and titling - the car itself. The physical property (not intellectual property) that is the car, is what is legally titled in the owner's name. The software license allows the licensee access to the intellectual property.
This could be a problem for used book stores as well then.
OK, then how is software different from books, or movies, or music.
I agree with you, but modern vehicles have incorporated into their design, several computers. Presumably each runs some type of program. What do you suppose would prevent future assertion of intellectual property claims on the part of the manufacturer?
The computer controls on a motor vehicle are really no different ~ yet you not only can sell your car without being attacked for violating the implied "license" to use the software on the chip(s) it would probably be impossible to get an upgrade anyway.
Then how come software patents are allowed instead of just copyright protection? They want it both ways.
/johnny
Okay, then they'll start licensing the software that runs the car...
When you buy a car, you are buying - and titling - the car itself. The physical property (not intellectual property)
That dog don’t hunt. With that thinking, the car company removes the intellectual property used to design the car at the end of the assembly line?
This “license” thing is simply a “simple” way to prevent copying without going to the trouble of including protections. Rosetta Stone is a good example and they have spawned a lot of poor customer relations and a whole industry of figuring out how to use their product for free, simply because buyer’s feel rippied off not being able to re-sell (or even install it on another of THEIR computers without a gigantic hassle) when they are done with it.
Being able to re-sell a car increases its original value, otherwise it would only be worth its useful life to the original owner, which might be 1/2 the original sale price.
Yes, that's how they do it now. There's nothing to stop them from deciding they want to go the license route, and if you think the result is absurd, then it follows that this decision is incorrect.
Old, what about the software that is now required to operate any car? Can’t function without it. If I recall correctly there was a suit about the software and the right of independent service providers to have access to the software which is required to make the vehicle function.
Don’t recall the outcome, but must have had broad implications.