I think it's we who don't understand. My son measures money in how many weeks allowance he needs to spend on it. And he still prefers to spend it on virtual things on sites like Roblox rather than buying physical objects, because he gets enjoyment and experiences out of it.

I find that hard to argue with when considering that e.g. the thousands I've spent on movies over the years, while e.g. I can pretend it is for the DVDs I bought rather than for access to the movie, really is about enabling experiences too - the physical objects are now largely obsolete and just takes up space. The experiences on the other hand last.

I find myself catching up slowly to his lack of attachment to holding something physical.

Sure, that means he needs to experience some degree of loss to make him internalize the risks, but even as he's coming to terms with that, but at the same time physical objects get broken or worn or lost too.

I don't worry so much about him losing virtual items he's paid for - I think most of the disappointment comes from no longer being able to be part of a community. E.g. the game he's upset about gets mentioned because he enjoyed making me play it with him - he's never mentioned the things in it he spent money on. We play other games, but that specific experience is something he misses.

And I think that is central to what copyright holders will face: They need to realize that these communities are far more important to people than their products, even when it is the product that enables the community. And antagonizing increasingly vocal communities is not a good long term strategy, because these people are going to more and more evaluate products in terms of community and trust. My son for example care far more about the group of people he follows and plays with than the specific game.