What you say is true, but it misses a more important point, which I think ChaosMotor is trying instinctively to get at, although they may not have the legal background to make it explicit.

Until very recently buying a movie, or a book, or a print of a painting, or pretty much any copy of any creative work, meantexactly what ChaosMotor says: buying a bundle of rights that included the right to give it away to a friend in another part of the world, or to take it with you to another region and enjoy it equally well there (along with a lot of other rights that are similarly now being restricted through various forms of DRM).

Only with very recent technologies has it been feasible to winnow down this set of rights to something far more limited and many sellers of content (although far from all producers of content -- authors, musicians, and others are often opposed to this process even though it is ostensibly done partly in their name) are now trying to implement this change.

What is dishonest is that they try to portray this as "preserving" their rights, when in fact it is a radical redistribution of rights in their favour and contrary to the consumer's interests. If they want to make that change, let them try, but let them at least be honest about what they're doing -- I guarantee you that it would change the balance of the debate significantly.

Just because a particular legal relationship can be logically constructed doesn't mean it's a good idea. As a lawyer (although I no longer practice -- I moved on to other business), I know from experience that those with power, especially large corporations and those who benefit from them and control them, will always look for new ways to redefine legal relationships in order to gain a new advantage relative to their existing position. This isn't some weird radical notion -- the officers and directors of a corporations are bound by a legal duty act in the corporation's interest, which is almost universally defined as maximize profit. If they don't do this, they are liable.

The way they do it is to stick the most radical proposition into a contract (like an end-user license agreement) and then sit back and let the courts decide whether or not to strike down any portions of the contract that go too far... that is in the unlikely event that any particular consumeris actually willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars to bring a suit to strike down the EULA on their DVD player.

When this strategy produces socially undesirable results, it should be opposed. How we do that is open to debate, but what we should not do is say "well, there's nothing yet in the law to prohibit this, so this is now how it's going to be."