This is based on licenses. Even eBooks have licenses (see store's TOS). So if I buy an app from Apple's App Store and want to sell it, it seems to me Apple would be required by the Court to delete that app from my account and place it in the used buyer's account. Same for eBooks. Am I missing anything?
the ramifications of this judgement are interesting for many reasons, and this is one; it's hard to see Apple being compelled to take positive action each time you sell your copy of software, but on the other hand, if you did and the licence is assigned to the buyer, does a contact now exist between apple and buyer which Apple has to uphold or face breach of contract?
Strictly the DRM doesn't prevent resale it prevents use. From the little I've seen I think they've erred away from suggesting their is any onus on the creator to enable the resale or indeed the reuse.
Interesting but Section 296ZE(2) specifically excludes the prevention of access when it is by a "computer program" and sub-section (9) excludes works for access by private individuals at a time of their choosing. So it seems to be very narrow in scope of application - how do you know about it?
I only skimmed it but doesn't it merely allow you to complain; the SoS won't necessarily take any action.
Do you know what this section is directed towards? It appears to be something like forcing a company to hand over data necessary to allow a researcher to work with the companies copyright materials??