I think what you're paying for is convenience.
Not really.
Convenience would be paying for a font and then using it on my web site, just the way I do with photos, icons, and other such resources.
Convenience is not jumping through hoops to integrate with an external service of unknown reliability, understanding non-trivial legal agreements with an industry infamous for trying to screw its legitimate customers, and paying more in a single year for font-as-a-service than I pay for permanent use of a font today just so I can legally use the font on a web site in plain text form instead of via images.
Incidentally, I notice that have mentioned elsewhere in this discussion that image replacement technologies are likely to violate the licensing terms of fonts. As far as I'm aware, there haven't been any significant test cases yet in this area in any major western jurisdictions, and the legalities are far from clear, because the font foundries can only protect their rights up to the extent that copyright law grants them. Copyright law incorporates concepts such as fair use (or your local equivalent). Moreover, in some jurisdictions, the design of a font is not subject to copyright at all, only the specific description (the font files being treated as software for this purpose). Even if the font foundries would like to limit your right to buy a font, put it on a server, and have the server generate renderings of specific text in that font, it's not entirely clear what their legal basis for doing so might be in unfavourable jurisdictions, including the US.
(I appreciate the point you made above about font creators feeling fairly compensated for use of their creations though, thanks.)
I can't give examples, for obvious reasons, but you can probably take my word for this.
Then, respectfully, you should reread it and then reply to what I actually wrote.
The point is not that I think fonts should be free. I have personally paid the equivalent of hundreds of dollars for pro-grade fonts, because I like my work to look good.
The point is that it's unrealistic for the foundries to expect that instead of paying for a font and then being able to use it, as we've managed in the civilised world for decades, we will now all move to a fonts-as-a-service model, where we will pay ongoing fees for DRM-crippled products served via third party systems out of our control.
There simply isn't any upside to that for the consumer, other than perhaps cheaper experiments with different fonts, which is of very limited value anyway if you're working with a professional agency with access to a large collection of fonts. The downsides, on the other hand, are potentially severe.