I think you're living in fantasy world where DRM actually works. Not once has DRM prevented me from watching a netflix show, it's only prevented me from watching it on netflix.
The whole bit about preventing people from copying content is just a feel good story that's told to TV executives in order to further DRM's primary purpose.
Yes, yes, and yes. DRM has blocked me from Netflix as a Linux user (not anymore obviously), blocked me from games due to bugs in the DRM in windows and or rootkits, and blocked me because the DRM does not work in Linux while the actual game does. And often you can find DRM free piracy versions.
DRM is a pestilence that blocks legitimate use.
> The point of enforcing DRM is not to prevent piracy, but rather to flex their market clout and demonstrate control.
I don't see how DRM does this. The amount they've spent compared to the results they've got seems to demonstrate a complete lack of control to me.
>As long as they put up moderate barriers to ripping, and as long as they have legal sanction to suppress productized piracy, the steady stream of new must-have content allows them to throw their weight around.
What does DRM do to prevent productized piracy?
>Licensing streaming without DRM is a slippery slope that decreases the perceived value of their content.
So the choose to increase the real value of it instead?