[Nextgrid]

Unpopular opinion, but I would say yes.

It doesn’t cost Netflix any more money whether one person or 10 people are watching a particular subscription.

I’d say the major appeal of the drive-in is the venue and all the accessories (big screen, sound, etc) - otherwise you’d just pay for Netflix yourself and watch it at home.

[icebraining]

> otherwise you’d just pay for Netflix

Yes, that's the point: if not for the drive-in, you'd pay for Netflix.

A more interesting question is: why can't one create that drive-in, as long as only Netflix subscribers can enter? If "it's a license, not a product" like these companies shout, trying to prevent legitimate ownership rights, the license should work anywhere.

[deelowe]

Opportunity cost is real...

[Nextgrid]

I mean I understand both sides of the argument, but it seems like physical goods manufacturers are doing fine without enforcing restrictions on how their goods are used (I am free to buy an off-the-shelf power tool and then rent it out without paying extra to the manufacturer), so why are we giving this exception to content producers?

In my opinion the law should be changed that content you pay for can be used as you wish except copying (otherwise you'd just copy it and resell). It'll drive up the prices of the "source" content, but the market will quickly fill the gap by offering affordable access to broadcasted versions of such content.