I don&#x27;t need to dodge the first-sale doctrine, because on the facts you recited, the doctrine doesn&#x27;t apply.  The case law has been pretty consistent that when you &quot;buy&quot; software in a typical mass-market transaction, you&#x27;re not buying a copy, you&#x27;re buying a license, and consequently the first-sale doctrine doesn&#x27;t apply.  See, e.g., Vernor v. Autodesk [1] [2]<p>EDIT:  Suppose that the first-sale doctrine did apply (e.g., in the case of an object with embedded software with no license as part of the transaction).  You&#x27;d only have the right to redistribute <i>that copy</i>.  Without a separate license, you  still wouldn&#x27;t have the right to create new copies, nor to create derivative works -- that is, no hacking to &quot;improve&quot; the code&quot; --- nor to &quot;publicly perform&quot; or &quot;publicly display&quot; the copyrighted work (which conceivably might apply in some circumstances).<p>As to your Upton Sinclair quote, you&#x27;re assuming facts not in evidence.  I try to stay on top of this area of the law, but it&#x27;s never been more than a miniscule part of my practice --- nor for that matter of anyone else&#x27;s, save for those rare lawyers who have to actually litigate a case in which these issues arise, which happens only rarely.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc</a>.<p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;scholar.google.com&#x2F;scholar_case?case=10742056384168408518" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;scholar.google.com&#x2F;scholar_case?case=107420563841684...</a>