This case is exactly asking whether someone can “order blu-rays that come with a DVD, open them up, and sell both separately.” Intuitively first sale doctrine should imply you can: I can buy a bunch of packs of trading cards, open them up, then sell the cards individually. Likewise I should be able to buy a book, tear it apart and sell one chapter of it at a time. Or buy a gallon of flour and split it into 12-oz containers to sell. This question is the crux of the case, though, so it will be very interesting to see what legal arguments are offered, and what precedent applies.
Actually there have been court rulings that ripping a book apart creates derivative works (what is a single chapter if not an abridged version of the original?), so you can't do that. Although other courts have ruled you can.
I find the (established?) grammar quite peculiar. Arguments are offered, passively, but precedent actively applies - itself, seemingly - as to distract from any subjectivity because, nobody should doubt, a high court's opinion always applied even before any decision was met.
