The first sale doctrine came about because copyright holders tried to claim selling at anything other than their own set terms was infringement making discount and used sellers pirates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobbs-M..._Co._v._Straus
I only bring this up to note that just because content providers claim something doesn't mean it should be taken at face value. consider
http://iplitigator.huschblackwell.co...ors-copyright/
A sculptor of a memorial on public land objected to use of a photo by the postal service. Whatever you think would you at least agree reasonable people could see this case differently? Kenny would call it theft of course but would other people? The artist was payed, the piece is on public display. A photo of a 3d image is far from an exact replica, the us postal service profited from the image but isn't really run on a for profit basis. We might move that discussion to another thread I don't mean to thread jack I'm just saying things aren't as cut and dry as some here are trying to claim.