To individuals, though? Licensing works great if some big company deems it profitable enough to license the show I want to watch, but isn't a full solution otherwise.
Sure, but does the additional cost of licensing to individuals make economic sense?
It almost sounds as if people want companies to be forced to make their content available at a desirable price to anyone in the planet, no matter the cost of it.
In other words, people are talking as if they have the "right" to see that content.
Rather, when dealing with post-scarcity goods, the seller has two, and only two options: Monetize the people that are getting that content, or spend money and resource playing pirate whackamole.
One of these two things makes money.
We're halfway through the 2010s, if a random web developer can paywall content and take money for access in hours, then the BBC can manage. I want to give them money. They won't let me.
Their loss. My conscience is clear when I watch Countdown through a UK proxy.
That implies a rational business. Rationally, new content ends up on the internet, unencrypted, within minutes of air, and all the whackamole in the world doesn't change that.
All the anti-piracy methods practiced by major content providers is inherently irrational.