Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Steam, Microsoft, Sony and Spotify all disagree with you. DRM isn't dying, the goalposts have just moved. I think people are starting to become more educated on what is and isn't acceptable DRM. If it's handled transparently then most people don't care. If it is handled poorly (I'm looking at you Installshield) then it's the nightmare we imagined.
There are certain things I can accept DRM on, streaming movies from Netflix, streaming movies from Spotify, cheap games from Steam, and reasonable SaaS subscriptions. And there are some things even I won't accept DRM on, ever. My music collection and my book collection, mainly. I'll pay the rent price for a game or movie, but I'll never pay the owner price and have you rent it to me. That's how I see DRM and that is how I instruct others to treat it.
As you said, we should be more pragmatic about it. I don't accept DRM on my e-books or music either, but I'm willing to compromise on movies and some games.
Sticker price is, as you mention, a big point as well.
I'll be honest, I used to be a DRM hater, like you, but for subscription services DRM doesn't even get in the way... The experience is just that much better, and I don't mind at all... I don't even think about it.
So, it seems our options are limited here. There isn't going to be online content without DRM, especially in emerging and very competitive markets. It's a necessary evil, I fear.
You are saying that some DRM doesn't get in the way, how is it exactly? DRM prevents users from using their system of choice, since DRM is practically never cross platform, and DRM stands in the way of copying (that's what it's created for) i.e. in a way of copying for legitimate purpose such as format and time shifting, backups, accessibility and various other applications of fair use. To put it practically - can you use Netflix on Linux let's say? Not without jumping through some weird hoops. Can you make backups from Netflix content? No. So I'd challenge that it's transparent and doesn't get in the way.
> It's a necessary evil, I fear.
No, it's an unnecessary evil. And there will be online content without DRM - content creators just need to come to grips with reality and do the right thing. DRM doesn't add any value - it only degrades it for legitimate users.
Content creators have two ways forward. First is dropping all DRM, which makes experience better for end users, and respects paying customers. It doesn't stop piracy, but it provides incentive to buy from those who treat customers with respect. Second way is pushing DRM, degrading the experience of paying customers and treating them as potential criminals by default. This way doesn't stop piracy as well, but such disrespect towards legitimate paying users doesn't create any incentive to deal with content creators and distributors who treat people this way, and artificial limitations which degrade the experience and flexibility of such content reduce the incentive even more (guess what incentive they increase? Exactly - for piracy).
Music industry realized that DRM doesn't offer them any benefits (and only offers disadvantages) so they dropped pushing it. Other industries are still catching up with the idea, but they'll come to it. DRM as a trend is dying, though in many areas DRM free distribution channels are still a minority. You can get more and more DRM free e-books, DRM free distributors like GOG and Desura show that it's not needed at all for gaming. What's really dragging behind is video distribution. Besides DVDs where DRM is trivially removable, there are virtually no DRM free channels especially for streaming. But I don't see any conceptual difference between music, books, games or videos and etc. In any of these cases DRM offers nothing positive to end users (totally on the contrary) as well as doesn't prevent piracy. So as a trend - it's dying but it will take time for it to be gone forever.
My whole point was - it doesn't make sense to make a Web standard out of a dying trend which on top is unethical and user hostile. Therefore Netflix is doing a really bad thing with pushing DRM into HTML standard.
I fully agree that DRM is hard to swallow on content that you've purchased outright though. I actively avoid purchasing things that I don't truly own after having purchased it.
Simple. See all arguments presented above. In short - it's unethical practice of preemptive policing which severely degrades usability and achieves nothing positive. It's based on implicit insulting treating users as potential criminals. Users naturally should be hostile to such disrespectful treating, and surely this should not become any kind of Web standard.
And just to note - a concept of a "stream that you don't own" is a sheer nonsense in itself when the data reaches the user. User should be able to back up any data - it's within the fair use of that data.
If you demand ownership of any data that comes over your connection, all you're doing is fostering an environment where we can't have nice things like Netflix and Hulu offering on-demand streaming of their immense libraries of content for a few dollars a month (much less spending 9 figures on creating original content). If you agree to the terms of service that Netflix provides their video under, the content you stream from them absolutely and undeniably is not something that you own -- no more than you own the rights to re-broadcast premium content that you receive via subscription cable or satellite and no more than you own the copyright to the content of a website just because you download it into your browser.
You mention degraded usability, which I've never experienced when using Netflix. If anything, Silverlight's "smooth streaming" is (by far) the best HD-over-the-wire experience I've seen still to this day. However, I've read that Linux users have a relatively awful time with Silverlight and Netflix. The latter are a perfect example of those who would benefit from accepting the real-world reality that DRM is necessary for premium content to be distributed online, and thus we ought to go ahead and make that a first class experience in raw HTML. Everyone would benefit from codifying that as a standard.
If you are talking about using doors - it's totally the opposite, usually it's DRM that violates privacy of users and is prone to all kind of abuse (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk... ).
> If you agree to the terms of service that Netflix provides their video under, the content you stream from them absolutely and undeniably is not something that you own
It doesn't really matter how it's called ("owned" or not "owned"). Users have full right to use this data in the manner they want (like time or device shifting) if they do it for their personal needs and don't redistribute it to others. In most cases to allow such flexibility one needs to either get DRM free content, or to strip DRM from the DRMed one. It's especially important for people with disabilities who are mostly ignored by DRM schemes. Streaming is merely a convenience scheme, in comparsion let's say with simple download (i.e. it doesn't require you to store data and allows accessing it instantly in contrast to waiting for the download). Those who intend streaming as a way to restrict usage are wrong since they ignore users' rights on fair use of that content.
> If you demand ownership of any data that comes over your connection, all you're doing is fostering an environment where we can't have nice things like Netflix and Hulu
Not true. Nothing essential dictates Netflix or Hulu to use DRM except paranoid fear of piracy by content publishers which push them to use such nonsensical and unethical tools like DRM. And as was already pointed above - it doesn't even prevent piracy anyway. All it does - punishes the paying customers and shows disrespect to them. So - there is no such necessity for any content to be distributed on the net under DRM. And if some content distributors insist on using such methods - let them, but it should never be encouraged or proliferated by making it a Web standard. They need to be educated that it's a backwards and unethical approach. And people should be encouraged to avoid such distributors - for the sake of making a point that customers should be treated with respect and to show that unethical methods are unacceptable. Repsect is also a two way street. When distributors treat users with respect, users have incentive to support them more in return and to respect them back. Most distributors don't care about or never think about it. But those who do, are respected by users much more and it always pays back with more loyal customers.
Linux example only proves my point - DRM degrades usability (in this case for Linux users). DRM schemes will never be fully portable and will always restrict use cases.