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 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.