It's the way the judge references the ReDigi case that is troubling to me. It's been a while since I read it, but I thought ReDigi found that digital copies don't have the same first sale rights that physical copies do.

This judge seems to think that the first sale doctrine isn't even applicable.

The Google book scanning case had previously indicated that giving full copies of scanned books to the owners clearly fell under fair use in part because of the first sale doctrine. This ruling seems to ignore that.

I do truly hope you're right though.