I don't understand hostility at DRM when it's used to secure a stream of something you don't own. Netflix streams are rentals, not content that you have rights to retain or re-purpose as you see fit. DRM is perfectly appropriate in that situation, just like any other licensing solution for any other product/service that you only pay for temporarily.
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.
>I don't understand hostility at DRM when it's used to secure a stream of something you don't own.
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.
There's nothing unethical or insulting about preemptive loss prevention unless you go out of your way to read that into it. When I lock my front door, that doesn't mean I'm implying that my mailman is a thief. There's no benefit in over-dramatizing the situation.
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.
We have a conceptual disagreement here. For me - DRM is similar to getting a book, which comes with an accompanying police robot which follows you around and allows you to read it only within certain periods of the day and prevents for example from photo copying. If you want to make this concept closer to renting, consider that book to be from the library. Does it make sense? No, because it's nonsense. And one would argue that it's unethical to use such preemptive policing which interferes with your activities and violates your privacy. DRM is exactly the same nonsense.
> 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.
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.