Do we really need to be so pedantic that we are arguing the technicalities of owndership of physical media? Obviously publishers reserve the right to limit the rights of owners, and that's most succinctly describes by saying they are liscensing consumers the rights to use their product. But what does that actually mean, and where is the line between acceptable and anti-consumer?
To me, preventing a person who buys a game or CD or blu-ray from freely reselling the game is clearly anti-consumer. This isn't about whether they have the right, but IF it's right. Clearly that is not the same as a publisher restricting the ability to infinitely copy and distribute the product. Games cost millions, if not tens of millions of dollars to make and is a very cost prohibitive medium, so it's understandable the publishers would implement methods to prevent the copy of their products. With something like blu-rays and CD, it's just not a comparable scenario. And you know what, it's still illegal - as far as I know - to copy a CD or blu-ray and certainly it's still illegal to redistribute a copy.
That's the practical idea of ownership. You buy a product, and can freely sell that product on the open market. So I'm sorry, but I own my physical copies of games, and to argue otherwise is to purposefully try to obfuscate the debate with intellectually vapid rhetoric.
Digital versus physical is another debate. And as our medium, and other mediums, continue to trend towards digital over physical then we need to re-evaluate the concepts of digital ownership, but that's not what we are talking about here.
