I don't need to dodge the first-sale doctrine, because on the facts you recited, the doctrine doesn't apply. The case law has been pretty consistent that when you "buy" software in a typical mass-market transaction, you're not buying a copy, you're buying a license, and consequently the first-sale doctrine doesn't apply. See, e.g., Vernor v. Autodesk [1] [2]
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'd only have the right to redistribute that copy. Without a separate license, you still wouldn't have the right to create new copies, nor to create derivative works -- that is, no hacking to "improve" the code" --- nor to "publicly perform" or "publicly display" the copyrighted work (which conceivably might apply in some circumstances).
As to your Upton Sinclair quote, you're assuming facts not in evidence. I try to stay on top of this area of the law, but it's never been more than a miniscule part of my practice --- nor for that matter of anyone else's, save for those rare lawyers who have to actually litigate a case in which these issues arise, which happens only rarely.
A spirited debate is one thing, but a comment suggesting that you haven't won the debate merely because the person you're arguing with is corrupted by money crosses a line. It's flatly uncivil and, more or less, an accusation of shillage; those accusations are verboten on HN.
I saw this because I read all of 'dctoedt's comments, because they are uniformly excellent, and was moved to comment because accusations like the ones you made here drive me fucking nuts. Please stop making them.
