Well... they call it overdraft protection, which is when they loan you money for a fee to cover a purchase that exceeds your balance.

In practice, instead of getting "Declined" and using a credit card instead, you end up paying $35 in order to borrow $1.

It does protect the customer though, at the very least it means their money was well spent and other people can't violate that social contract by taking what they want for free.

Personally, I don't feel any social contract is violated if someone else gets for free music that I paid money for.

Furthermore, it seems neither do many of the artists - most of them make their music available for free through e.g. YouTube.

And even if such a social contract existed, I suspect I would feel more harmed by the inability to format-shift the music I bought, than by someone else listening to the music without paying.

It is rare for two passengers on an airplane to pay the same rate even for the same seat and service class. Does this violate any social contract in your opinion? Obviously, the money was not wall spent by one of them.

Well no it doesn't, but that's generally because they had rewards with the airline or bought it in a deal somewhere. Both are legal ways to reduce the money you pay for things. As is streaming music these days. And I should emphasize I'm not against being able to crack DRM and I think it would be really bad to make uncrackable DRM. In my opinion DRM is not supposed to stop the people who would crack it anyways, it's the people who would try it just for the hell of it if it were easy. It's like why you put a lock on your house: it's not because it makes it impenetrable to burglars, it's because it keeps out 99% of the assholes who would just walk in if there was no door.

I still fail to see how I am better served because someone else cannot copy some music without a rights holder permission.