cool. me, I feel it's the industry that "industry" that ignores the inconvenient parts. but it's not ignorance, really, it's an attempt to move public perception of unsettled law or often-distorted issues in whatever direction each group steers
take this "license" you mention in printed books. I went for one of my 1984 prints, the one that's not yet falling apart, and looked for a license. there isn't any to be found. below the copyright notices, there are a few paragraphs about several rights that remain reserved to the publisher, i.e., that are explicitly *not* licensed. that's not a license at all, but I guess that's how misinformed or misinforming people refer to that statement.
specifically, returning to the point you attempted to dispute upthread, I checked that it doesn't license any right to read or to have a copy or to lend it or sell it to others. it doesn't have to. those are not rights that need to be licensed. reading and having copies are not exclusive rights; lending and selling, in some jurisdictions, are, but they are exhausted by the first sale, and after that they're no longer reserved. making copies and adaptations remain reserved, but there are allowed exceptions under fair use and other provisions depending on the jurisdiction.