I asked a lawyer about this. Well, specifically, about the difference between a physical book and an ebook (Kindle). He basically stated that when you buy a physical book, you are, in fact, obtaining a license to read the contents of said book. While you own the physical object, you do not own the contents. You can transfer this "license" to another party (gift it or sell it) but you, in fact, licensing the contents.
It makes a weird kind of sense. I can sell the license to my physical copy of _Neuromancer_, but I cannot sell the contents (or claim to be the author) of _Neuromancer_.
That is actually incorrect. Once you bought the physical book, it is yours. There is no license involved¹, and you may do what ever you want with your property. However, copyright law adds an incursion on top of property rights, which by government law adds a limitation to what the owner of the private property might do.
1) Some books include a legal trick by adding a shrink wrap around the book. The claim is that by breaking such "seal", the owner of the book agrees to a legal binding contract (confusingly called a "License Agreement") with the book publisher. Such practice has a long history of being non-enforceable outside the United States, and a sketchy history within.
The physical book is yours, and in the US through the first sale doctrine you can transfer it to someone else.
But you only have a limited licence to the contents. You can read them, under the Fair Use doctrine you could photocopy or otherwise use a few small excerpts to teach a class or use in your own writing, etc. etc., but you most certainly do not gain a licence to copy the whole book and give or sell copies of it, or to use this example, do the same with a derivative work like a translation.
It makes a weird kind of sense. I can sell the license to my physical copy of _Neuromancer_, but I cannot sell the contents (or claim to be the author) of _Neuromancer_.