> But aside from that, it offers the opportunity to fix a broken part of the market – content providers want to restrict territory, but I'll be distributors don't!
Are you sure about that? Netflix built its business around contracts with content creators. I doubt Netflix would support this new law. This law would not require content creators to make content available on Netflix.
My guess is, if such a law were passed, then Netflix would either (a) pull out of the EU or (b) restrict available content even further. And that's why you may not see support for such a bill. Legislators will hear that message from both Netflix and Hollywood. Your governments may either quietly ignore this campaign, or if it gets big enough, make some attempt to share the reasoning with the public. If you did manage to elect someone who could pass this law, I'll bet you find it hurts the available content more than it helps.
There's still plenty of room in the world for a Netflix competitor, particularly, locally based ones. Ironically, this law would hurt such startups more than it would help them. The fact is, content providers have good reason to limit consumption to certain mediums and areas.
Making content costs money, just like anything else. Content creators have a right to choose where and how to do business, just like any other company. Content creators lose money in countries with insufficient copyright controls. My guess is every country in the EU does not have the same copyright controls, and this is a major sticking point for content creators. And, in many cases, the content may not be findable via torrents etc. It does not hurt content creators to withhold certain content.
People made up money. Nobody really owns information or physical objects. Some people think all information should be free because it happens to be easier to acquire information than objects. Yet these same people will freely admit that authors and programmers deserve to be paid. It takes as much energy as physical labor. You need food, shelter and security to do it. One could argue that money is the problem, though I'd point out that moneyless societies have their own downsides, and historically, people don't want to be forced into them. Poor people are not chomping at the bit to move into communist societies, nor is any such society welcoming the world's poor with open arms. The few times that has happened successfully, it's been a call to arms, and the success is brief. Deng Xiaoping and Gorbachev's reforms made clear what works, which, love it or hate it, is some form of capitalism. It allows us to compete without killing each other.