[anigbrowl]

Oh bullshit. That's like saying capitalism is preventing me from enjoying my Ferrari because I don't have enough money to buy one. Why do you start from a false premise of being entitled to watch anything you feel like at the price of your choice? Just because the marginal cost of copying is low does not create an entitlement on your part, nor does it reflect the fact that the fixed costs of production are often terribly high and have to be recouped by selling a large number of copies.

Of course, a Ferrari is a physical thing. But every Ferrar sitting in a showroom is one that nobody has been willing to pay for yet. Does that mean you should be able to take it for a ride when the dealership closes at night as long as you have it back there by opening time the following day (ignoring depreciation)?

[Zak]

Most of the things DRM is used to prevent would otherwise be classed as fair use.

Copyright law was, until quite recently about granting a monopoly on the large-scale or commercial use of a work. At-home copying for personal use was generally legal - even explicitly protected by law in some cases[0]. Same with multiplexing video on different screens, creating backups and skipping commercials.

DRM and legal provisions forbidding its circumvention change the rules quite a bit, stripping away significant rights from consumers. Losing rights one once had might well be grounds for a feeling of entitlement.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act#Exemp...

[anigbrowl]

That's a far cry from claiming you can't watch the show at all, which was what I responded to. As for watching on different devices, I can't say I've found this to be much of an actual problem in practice, and consider the claims about significant loss of rights to be wildly overblown.