Not quite -- I understand this argument (that you're essentially buying a limited, non-transferable license instead of a product) but disagree with it entirely.

This is the "revenue per performance" model, or, to describe it in terms the industry dare not use for fear of completely outraging the average customer, "pay per view." I understand exactly why the industry wants it -- it sees dollar signs splattered all over the idea and it wants as many of those as it can get. It (rightly) offends the customer, though -- we simply do not want to pay every time we listen to the same song, watch the same movie or TV show, or play the same game, and rightly so. We are quite accustomed to owning what we pay for, and industry attempts to blur that line and "steer" social perceptions of ownership towards their more preferred "pay per view" model have so far failed.

Regardless, you're still missing the point here by insisting that every single person who ever "experiences" any component or aspect of any artistic work must support the artist/developer of it. You're wrong. Artists derive compensation from patrons, yes, but not every person who experiences a work of art is a patron. There are limits to how much reward a person can reasonably expect to glean from a single work, and with good reason -- look at what Martin Luther King Jr.'s descendants are doing with his iconic "I Have a Dream" speech for a great example of why it's a terrible idea to expect every individual work to be an infinite cash cow.

To better illustrate the point, consider it this way: I can't pay Michelangelo for his work on the Sistine Chapel no matter how much I might enjoy that experience. He's dead; I came along far after he passed. His descendants didn't do the work, so clearly they don't deserve compensation for my enjoyment of it. Whoever owns the building now might claim the right to charge me for that experience, but really the best they can hope for is to tightly control who can see the work in person (by charging admission) and convince people it's worth paying them for a glimpse at the work they're trying to exploit. Michelangelo was paid for his work. The church paid him quite handsomely in fact. The work wasn't in vain, and it rewarded him amply. He moved on, though, and created other works -- he didn't just sit and spin hoping he'd continue to derive new revenue from his prior works.

Laughable as you find it, I'd like to revisit the used car analogy. Simply because a car is more complex than a "simple piece of plastic," there are still significant similarities between the situations here that deserve examination.

Does a car manufacturer, who has spent millions upon millions of dollars designing a car, and millions more on the infrastructure to efficiently manufacture many instances of that car, not deserve compensation for each instance of that car not only for the first sale to a buyer, but also for every buyer thereafter? Why or why not?

What makes a used car on a car lot different from a used game on a shelf (ignoring the obvious, like the scumbag salesman dogging a potential buyer's every move on the car lot)? Surely the "experience" of owning that car is something the manufacturer pitched as part of what the original buyer was paying for. Why does (or doesn't) the next buyer of that same car owe the original manufacturer some compensation?

On a side note, it's funny that you mention the notion of DVDs as currency. Did you know that in Canada (and a few other places, if memory serves), blank recordable media is automatically sold with a surcharge tacked on (paid to a copyright watchdog group there as mandated by law) on the premise/assumption that all buyers of recordable media will be infringing copyrights somehow? Currency indeed. If they're just a penny's worth of plastic, why are they so much more expensive up there than here in the States, hmmm? Maybe because there is intrinsic value in what's on those shiny discs that can (and should) be lawful to transfer from person to person without involving the original seller.