https://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html
> In the United States, once you own a copy of a program, you can back it up, compile it, run it, and even modify it as necessary, without permission from the copyright holder. See 17 USC 117.
> For example, after purchasing a copy of Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 Workstation---which is a poorly tuned version of NT 4.0 Server, minus a few utilities---you can back it up, apply a small patch that fixes the tuning, and run the result.
Whether the law is enforcable in court is another matter:
> Ten years ago, the SPA convinced Louisiana to subvert the will of Congress by passing a law that declared shrinkwrap licenses enforceable. In Vault v. Quaid, 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988), this law was struck down. Federal copyright law preempts state law.
> The SPA didn't give up. It keeps arguing in court that, gee, if all these software makers claim that you can't use the software without a license, then they can't all be wrong, can they? (Ignore the fact that they're willingly selling their software to the public.)
> The SPA lost again in Step-Saver but then won in ProCD. I expect the Supreme Court to step in within the next few years to resolve the dispute in favor of Vault and Step-Saver.
Vernor v. Autodesk (decided by the Ninth Circuit in 2010) held that it is possible for companies to license you software in lieu of selling it, which pretty much is the exact opposite of the contention here. And when you're a licensee, not an owner, well, §107 doesn't apply here at all.
