Regarding the top item, this is incorrect. If you buy a photo of James Dean you own that physical photo. If the agreement is silent as to the right to license copies of the photo then arguably it would seem logical that all rights were sold with the photo and the prior owner could not make copies without having that right carved out of the contract of sale. What happened here is probably the usual. Some site owner sells his site but retains a copy because he can. On the side he/she decides to sell copies becuase he/she can. Unless this right was carved out, the owner has no rights to do this because the sale of the site included all the rights that go along with the site. Regarding the second half of the email, it is long established that electronic evidence is admissible in court. There are issues of authentication at times but you can use it. This won't get to court but is good leverage. Good luck.
It's based on the rest of your premise that if you buy something you can do whatever you want with it. That's not how I believe the law is interpreted for intellectual property. As a matter of fact it's the exact opposite of what you are trying to say. Copyright is always retained by original author unless expressely given to another person. Another example is music...if you buy a CD you don't own the rights to the music. You own a single LICENSE to use the music. There is no agreement when you buy a CD that's because it's automatic and part of the law. The same goes for movies and books too. Purchasing a copy of something from the original author never transfers the rights of the copyrighted content. Let's say I have a site with 10 articles...now those articles originated on my computer at home typed by me. If I sell a site with those articles on the site I am not transferring the copyright to the new owner. People take it for granted that when they buy a site they own the content and that's just a falsehood. What you have is a license to use that content as it was originally used when you purchased the site. One last example. If you buy a magazine...you can't copy and paste the articles onto your website. You do not own the copyright to the material it's as simple as that. Now...I did some more research in the middle of writing this thread and found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine Basically it does give the first-sale buyer rights. This does NOT make them the new copyright holder it only gives them certain rights with the content. I believe that website content sold would be included as part of the first-sale rights. You can argue easily that by making the original purchase of the site that you have received a lawful copy of the copyrighted work and that you do not need permission to use it or sell it again.
I may be a little familiar in this area. If I sell my photograph to Bill without reservation, Bill can sell it to John who can sell it to Mary who can post it on her web site. This is something completely different. Take a look at your CDs and you'll see the license you are getting. With the sale of an entire web site it's like selling the music itself along with all the CD stock. This is incorrect and exactly my point. If you have 50 backup copies of your site at home and you sell someone your web site, complete with the articles and you don't make any statement with regard to what you have at home, then IMHO you have likely sold them the rights to those articles. Normally this is addressed explicitly in the sale agreement - and I always address this issue. But absent the seller's reservation of rights who is in the position to clarify the agreement, it seems logical that the new web site owner has all rights to the content as that was the crux of the meeting of the minds. The rights to publish the unique articles that are published on the site are gone even though you may have physical digital copies in your desk. This is a misunderstanding of the first sale doctrine. The difference between all of your examples and the sale of a web site is that the record/magazine example is clearly a LICENSE granted to a licensee by the licensor. It is not a sale of rights. With the web site, think of it this way - it's like Vogue magazine selling it's right to publish the magazine. This is the same thing with regard to the web site owner - he/she has sold his rights to publish that web site. After all, if a buyer is buying a domain and the content it's like buying the "Vogue" brand name and the content in the magazine. If you really want to get logical, the price differential between a license and ownership is huge. I'm guessing the web site purchaser is ticked off because he paid the price to own the content, not to get a license to use it.
And clarity is a big part of the issue. When it's not clear what rights are sold...courts will often lean toward original copyright owner. That's where we disagree in theory and opinion but I respect your view. I also ask for "exclusive rights" whenever I buy a site with content I want to use. I ask if copies exist as well and double check copyscape.com. It would be nice if there was a lawyer to chime in here. I know at NP Berryhill like to make replies but this site doesn't appear to have anyone that passed the bar and is willing to voice legal opinions. Guess us amateurs will have to do our best.