First of all, please don't conflate license agreement and statute -- a statute is law, a license agreement is a private contract that may or may not be valid.

First of all, please don't conflate license agreement and statute -- a statute is law, a license agreement is a private contract that may or may not be valid. The US has until recently had strong case law support for lending and reselling goods. Look up the first sale doctrine, which states that copyright holders can only impose restrictions on the first sale of a copyrighted project, and thereafter the property can be used, sold, abused, denigrated, etc., as desired by the possessor. This is actually a really important part of copyright law, because without it a copyright holder could say "You can't give my CD to charity, I don't make money for poor people" (manifest practically as "you must not charge less than x price"), and otherwise impose ridiculous restrictions on private property, thereby diminishing the real property of the possessor in favor of the theorized intellectual property assigned to the copyright holder in order to promote useful progress in the arts. To the extent that copyright powers do not promote useful progress in the arts, they should be entirely demolished!!!