It's literally the definition of rent seeking and it's toxic to free market society.
We don't want your landlord to get a cut of every thing you buy in their apartment. We don't want them to get a cut of every service you order. We dont't want them to get a cut of every single thing you buy while living in that apartment.
We don't want those things for digital landlords either just because they deigned to put together some eletronics they were already paid for.
Neither did Apple, Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft. They already got paid for their iPhones, Xboxes, PS4s and Switches (consoles have stopped being sold with a loss around PS3 generation). Apple earns fat profits and margins on their hardware especially.
Primary value is created by game developers, app developers and other people building things on top of those platforms.
If you believe this, then clearly you should believe that Spotify should be free after initial payment. After all, the recording artist was already paid, the mp3 exists, and the incremental cost to stream a song approaches $0.
It’s not a strawman. It’s an application of your claim that up front payment gives rights to perpetual and arbitrary use of a product. Content DRM is as arbitrary and artificial as any iOS limitation.
The "primary value of a property" (place), then, does not keep you warm or protect you from rain or theft, has no amenities nor facilities to store your belongings. It does not supply water or electricity, and has no responsible party to keep it maintained.
You might instead choose a open field, or under a bridge, which would require no rent payment.
The locational value of most property far outweighs the value of improvements on it. This is not a particularly controversial statement among economists. A 1000 ft. high rise in Antarctica is not very valuable. A lord who extracts taxes from peasants that grow crops on it does little to improve the ground.
