You're missing the entire point of the Ferrari argument. If you bought a Ferrari and the agreement with your purchase said "You must not resell this car" then morally you would be wrong re-selling it, because you were told not to. If you don't agree with the clause that says you can't resell it then you shouldn't buy it.

Please tell me you are joking.

The law is not a moral authority, and attempting to presenting it as such is one of the most disingenuous fallacies in existence.

Something is never wrong because it's against the law. Ideally, something is against the law because it is wrong, but that's not always the case.

When I buy a physical good, such as a Ferrari, there's nobody who can tell me what the fuck I can do with it. For all the seller cares I could drive it repeatedly against the nearest wall, then set it on fire. Same goes for selling it. I do not see myself obliged to answer to any authority on what I can do with my property.

The basic law says I can sell a property of mine; and it says it is illegal to sell me things while demanding to not to resell those.

The problem is, copyright law says I have no rights and copyright holders have any rights they want to impose over me. Sorry guys, it's not a good offer.