What does the GPLv3 have to do with any of this? Copyleft-licensing software doesn't mean the original author gives up any of their own copyright privileges. How do you think dual licensing works?

> Buying software means buying the copyright and become owner of it.

No, when people use the word "buy" here, they're using it in the same way I might buy a physical book.

When I buy a book, I'm free to write in it, scan it, transcribe it, rip it in half, reglue the spine, put a dust cover on it, or resell it. I'm not free to republish it or violate the author's copyright.

When I buy a piece of software, I should be free to hotpatch the DLL, back up the product, put wrappers around it, examine it, write about it, or resell it. That doesn't mean the owner should lose their copyright. You're conflating two unrelated concepts -- the abolition of copyright and the erosion of basic consumer ownership rights that have been established for centuries.

In fact, the EU already has a right to resale for digital software. And yet, despite that consumer-friendly rule, not every piece of software in the EU is currently GPLv3 licensed.

All that people are saying is that our rights as consumers shouldn't go away just because we bought a digital book instead of a physical one.

In the context of software bundled with a device, the software should be considered accesory if the device needs it to be useful for its main purpose. Often software is used instead of a chip because it's cheaper, easier to correct mistakes, more flexible in general. But the hardware is sold, and so the accesory software should not be used as an excuse to apply the license model to physical products.