Keep in mind there's one other problem with digitization: a lack of ownership. The law does not recognize any concept of digital sale: all digital copies are licensed property of the publisher[0], and it is not possible to legally sell them. This gives publishers the ability to retroactively wipe libraries' catalogs on the basis that they own them.
Yes, this isn't a problem with public domain works; but those have bigger preservation problems. DRM is a self-inflicted wound.
[0] I resisted the urge to write "author" here as American copyright is assignable. It shouldn't be, because this assignability is usually demanded up-front by publishers.
> The law does not recognize any concept of digital sale
The law does recognize a digital sale, including the right to resell and make archival copies. It turns out you can't trust the publisher's lawyers to give you good legal advice.
For example you don't need a license to run software you have legally acquired a copy of. Black letter law already gives you that right in the copyright act[1].
Capitol Records v. ReDigi says otherwise. In this case, a company called ReDigi claimed to have a way to digitally resell files without "copying" them. They even engineered their software to progressively delete the file on the seller's computer as bits are copied to the buyer.
The courts rejected that argument, because the bits are still not moved. They are just copied and deleted very quickly. Even if the file isn't in "two places at once", shredding the original and replacing it with a copy is still copyright infringement. In copyright law, 1 + -1 != 0 .
I will give you that the RAM Copy Doctrine[0] is a dead letter when it comes to mere execution of a computer program. But let's look at the actual black-letter law you're citing: 17 USC 117(b). It does not say that you can always sell computer programs, it just says that if you can sell them, then any backup or archival copies you make have to be sold (or destroyed) along with the original. Nothing in here actually mandates that originals have to be legally transferable.
In the realm of digital goods, the way that you acquire software is with a license agreement - because at the very least the basic act of digitally delivering you the goods requires some kind of contractual relationship between you and the service selling you the product. That provides enough consideration for them to start taking rights away, because courts let you contract away fair use or first sale in exchange for other rights[1]. So you don't have a basis to sell the program in question, because the agreement under which the product is delivered says you promise not to sell the program.
In the physical world this is harder to argue because most stores do not actually make you sign things in order to buy computer programs. There are already very well established rules about how sales work on physical goods in absence of a contractual agreement, too. You can use shrinkwrap licensing and there are court cases that respect that, but that's something the publishers had to fight tooth and nail in order to get. Digital was born with handcuffs.
For what it's worth, the Internet Archive is fighting in court with a bunch of book publishers to change this by establishing a legal basis for unlicensed digital lending. I do not expect them to win, even though I want them to win. The big hurdle with this is, again, that the courts will not allow you to make use of first sale digitally even if you slap DRM on the process.
[0] The result of MAI Systems Corp v. Peak Computer Inc; and legally binding in the 9th Circuit. Under this doctrine, any copy made even just turning on the computer or loading a program in memory in order to execute it is an infringement of the copyright owner.
[1] This is also part of the reason why D&D's Open Gaming License was an utter piece of trash, even before they made it worse. It provided little to no rights in exchange for you dropping your fair use rights in exchange.
Yes, this isn't a problem with public domain works; but those have bigger preservation problems. DRM is a self-inflicted wound.
[0] I resisted the urge to write "author" here as American copyright is assignable. It shouldn't be, because this assignability is usually demanded up-front by publishers.