So which is it? Product or license?

When people wanted to backup their DVD's so that little Johny didn't destroy the latest Disney video, companies sued with the argument that when you break a plate, you have to buy a new one (product).  Ok, so they want laws that apply to product to apply to software and other media?  Nope... when you get tired of the latest game you bought and try to sell it used, all of a sudden they argue that you didn't buy a product, you bought a license, so the traditional first-sale docterine limiting copyright doesn't apply, as they only made a contract with you, not the person you sold to.  How is this different than books, for example?  Wouldn't people get pissed off if it was illegal to sell/purchase used books?  The big problem in this ebay case, and in the RIAA cases, is the DMCA, and that while the companies know they can't win in court, they know they're going up against people who can't afford to bring cases to court.  I strongly believe that there should be some provision that when companies sue individuals using DMCA, they should be forced to pay the legal fees if they lose.  Lawyers would take on the case for the defendant as they're relatively sure to win and get paid, and companies would be less likely to file unsupportable take-down requests.

http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/government-law/legislation/new...

Q: What would you say to a mom who wants to make a backup of her kids' DVD movies?

Jack Valenti: When you go to your department store and you buy 10 Cognac glasses and two weeks later you break two of them, the store doesn't give you two backup copies. Where did this backup copy thing come from? A digital thing lasts forever.

http://www.engadget.com/2004/08/30/the-engadget-interview-jack-valenti/