Over 20 years ago I was standing in line at a bookstore (younger ones might not have heard of these things we used to have called bookstores back in the old day

Over 20 years ago I was standing in line at a bookstore (younger ones might not have heard of these things we used to have called bookstores back in the old days) and spotted an anti-lending clause in the copyright page of a book I was about to buy. I exited the line and returned the book to the shelf. I don't always check for these anti-lending clauses but sometimes I do. In my opinion it's not legally enforceable because it violates first sale doctrine. But I don't like to support corporations whose lawyers have this attitude, so it always generates a 'no-sale'. They are not new clauses in 2013, but they seemed pretty new when I first saw them and I don't think they existed in books 30 years ago as opposed to 20. I have similar feelings about the non-transferability of DRM digital books, albums and mobile apps. On those they make the argument that since the product is intangible there is no sale and it is not sold but a licensing fee is being charged for access to a bitstream, an access license which can be revoked at will by the licensor and without recourse by the licensee. Since these products are not being sold I am not sure the words books or albums really apply, they are more bitstream consumption allocation contracts. Not anything I am all that interesting in licensing, I'd rather buy real albums and books, and I do.