Well since I wrote a lot about this before, let me jsut say that you can't compare a clock or other physical goods to games, books, etc. The value of physical goods, like cars and stuff, is what they do for you, meanwhile the value of entertainment is the idea. When you sell a car or a clock, you no longer get its value. If you have seen a movie or played a game, you have already used the value that the original creator made, and you can't really transfer that such that you no longer benefit from it. If you pirate it or buy/sell it used the original creator doesn't see the money for the vlue he created for you, the utility it provided, if you will. It's just that with the used market someone gets paid INSTEAD of the original creator, meanwhile with piracy no one gets money off of the original creator's back. Which is why I argued that used markets are a bit under pirates morally.
Economically it's slightly more complex, yes, but morally that's what it comes down to, I feel like.
I understand where you're coming from but there's a few flaws - or rather over simplifications in your points.
One, you're assuming (incorrectly for sure) that generically media (books, games, films, etc) are one time experiences and once "used" once their value drops. This simply isn't true for everyone, although it will be true for some. I have many books I've had for years and re-read regularly, there is music I cannot do without and the same goes for games. For the many people like that the value isn't once and selling on the book, CD, game or whatever is exactly the same as selling something physical because you can no longer use it.
I think you're also oversimplifying the used market (I have no trouble with your point on piracy and agree with that. Piracy in principle is wrong although understandable in certain cases). The used market caters to a certain demographic and typically exists to furnish lower cost goods and to allow people a channel to sell on goods they themselves have purchased. It's a natural extension of any buying/selling market. Of course it cuts out and can compete with the original seller but often times it doesn't to be honest due to demographics and price. For example if I want a new car, clock or CD which are guaranteed to be pristine condition then I have to buy new at full price.
I do agree videogames represent perhaps the oddest challenge for used goods, even moreso than music or films.
This is because the content is really digital and doesn't age in a sense. Of course the physical medium may be scratched, etc. but equally it may not and then a new game really is the same as a new one.
Now in theory music and films would be the same except generally people buy them to keep them for a while. Very few people trade brand new music or film purchases right away.
But videogames are in a different place, with used versions of games appearing literally the day after release, and of course in those cases the physical disks will almost certainly be pristine.
This is what annoys publishers/developers - the second hand market in videogames competes much more directly than other second hand markets for other media.
But... as I say I see that as the industries issue to solve. It can't simply be given different treatment that all other goods (physical or digital on physical media) that people buy and re-sell as we've traded in goods for centuries.
Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...