But should that control extend to the right to make further copies? If you say yes, then you've effectively eliminated the creator's control over their work, since copies are effectively free to distribute. If you say no, then you're stuck with a policy that there's no practical way to enforce.
That question makes as much sense as asking if car owners should be able to give lifts with his own car.
I think that most copyright owners are interested in restricting the making of copies because selling copies is a source of revenue for them. Revenue with which they buy food, and clothes, and housing, and cars.
When food and clothes and housing and cars are all able to be freely copied just like music recordings and books and movies are, then the makers of media would likely be less interested in making sure they get paid for their work. If they need a new car, they can just copy one, for free.
I know why many copyright holders want to keep their (our, since I'm one as well) privileges. That doesn't mean I have to agree that we as society should grant it.
Sure you bought it, but what did you buy? Did you buy the rights to whatever you please with it? It depends. Say I only sell an MP3 through Amazon what are you doing? You're buying it with the following terms of use, which you agree to by the very act of forking money over for it:
2.1 Rights Granted. Upon payment for Music Content, we grant you a non-exclusive, non-transferable right to use the Music Content only for your personal, non-commercial, entertainment use, subject to the Agreement.
2.2 Restrictions. You must comply with all applicable copyright and other laws in your use of the Music Content. Except as set forth in Section 2.1 above, you may not redistribute, transmit, assign, sell, broadcast, rent, share, lend, modify, adapt, edit, license or otherwise transfer or use the Music Content. We do not grant you any synchronization, public performance, promotional use, commercial sale, resale, reproduction or distribution rights for the Music Content. As required by our Music Content providers, Music Content is available only to customers located in the United States.
Sure, and Amazon should be able to go after the buyer for the breach of contract. The people who subsequently got a copy (and didn't know of the breach) should not be bound by it, though.
Those people would be benefitting from the original pirate's crime. Generally feigning ignorance is not enough to absolve you from the responsibility in such cases. If you buy a stolen car (even not knowing that it was stolen) the police will take it away from you and will not reimburse you, and you may be even looking at jail time.
This kind of copyright infringement is not a crime, at least not in the US, and in this hypothetical situation it wouldn't be more than a ToS violation. Comparing this to stealing is specious.
If you want to demonstrate that non-colluding third-party beneficiaries can be sued for the breach of contract of a second party, be my guest, though (I honestly don't know).
The only way here to accept that content will be pirated but trust users to do right thing as well.
Many content creators put off users with their stupid DRM implementations. I remember buying a game for some $34 in 2008. But that game had 5 copy limit. Now I am what you can call a "regular formatter". Formatted PC twice, changed laptop and now I do not own license to that game.
Let user make copies, but trust that they won't copy them further.
But the issue here is not only the end users, but also publishers and others who could potentially make a business out of selling this authors work without paying him one cent. There is in my opinion little reason to want to get rid of ones copyright, it's better then to declare that it can be used freely without charge for non commercial use for example. Or if the intention is to sell it, simply not using any DRM schemes at all.
