DY, if you purchase a CD, according to the poskim you have the right to copy if for yourself only. The same laws of copyright applies to software as to CD and software is usually licensed by users. By agreement when you purchase your software you don’t have a right to use it on as many computers as you choose to load it to. You have purchased the right for one user or five users or for how many users you purchased.
So my curiosity is to whether the geniuses that came up with this RENTAL theory are as careful NOT to break the rule on OTHER people’s copyright and license infringement as they are when it comes to their own profit?
Furthermore I highly doubt it is legal to “say” that you are “renting” this CD according to an agreement inside the sealed package which you cannot see or read until you “purchase” this item. How can you possibly agree to something you have no access to read? So that in itself would not hold up in a court of law or under any law it is just double talk.
Anyone who “buys” into this nonsense is a fool! When you pay the same price as any other CD you purchase, then it is a purchase and not a rental. If they want to call it a rental they should lower the price! In addition, if they are doing this for some halachic reason in order that you can’t even make a copy for yourself, then you should not be able to profit from a sale, and should only be able to profit from a rental. For example, netflix or blockbuster “rents” movies and therefore does not charge the same amount as if you would go out and buy the movie to keep in your own collection.