You are confusing 'ownership' with 'right to redistribute'.
You're confusing owning a physical copy with owning the software itself. Read some EULAs. Anything you buy is a license and can generally be revoked at any time, on a whim, if they wanted to. Boxed copies are just like Steam.
I'm not saying I like that, I'm saying that's how things are written anymore.
I'm going to start off with a disclaimer here. I am not a lawyer so I might have misinterpreted something. So, basically, if I am wrong in my interpretation, please do update me on where I might be wrong. It's always best to have ones facts correct.
Anyhow, if I'm correct, then he's not far off, at least if you're reading the law itself, instead of the EULA which may include whatever the publisher might take as a flight of fancy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
This leaves the copyright holder, through the terms of the EULA and TOS that many software and music companies favor in order to bypass section 109, liable for Clayton Act violations through the fact that they claim that the purchase of the software or music is not a purchase and that the end user does not own the software but has rights to use it, thus engaging in other acts or practice in the nature of rental or lease. While many states have changed their contract laws so that a sale of software is defined under the UCC, in response to UCITA through so called Anti-UCITA bills, so a purchase of software is a sale under the UCC at the point of purchase, thus the purchaser owns the software at the time of purchase and the EULA terms imposed after the sale, if not disclosed prior to the sale, are unenforceable, other states have not.
Even MicroSoft's tried to enforce the EULA and has in essense lost: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp_v._Zamos
This isn't iron-clad however, as it doesn't appear to have been fully set in stone for absolutely all possible variations, but when it comes to games and software, my interpretation of the law is that while the EULA states that we own a license to the software, the law says that we own that one copy of the software. What we then choose to do with that one copy is up to us. What we definitely can't do, however, is make copies and sell/give away. But rent, lend, sell? Our prerogative.
Or, actually, Virginia and Maryland appears to have accepted the UCITA, whereas the other states refused to do so due to the following:
The UCITA has been extremely controversial and has been opposed by a number of consumer groups and the attorney generals of many states because it is said to considerably weaken consumer protections, reinterpret contracts and licenses in such a way that is — in the opinion of these critics — unduly favorable to the software producers and disregarding the reasonable entitlements of consumers.
I'm not going to look into what each and every country practice wrt EULAs and their applicabilities, suffice it to say people should probably read up on this.