That's exactly not what I said:
> The rights holders and/or distributors have every right to demand certain conditions for you to view their IP.
"Certain conditions" here referring to a subscription to a given service as many artists do on sites like Patreon, subscription through an exclusive DRM-enabled device like an Apple TV or FireTV, heck you could even consider the set-top boxes used by cable and satellite TV companies as that sort of requirement (and an active subscription of course).
The only media to which this doesn't really apply is OTA TV, Radio, and YouTube videos (mostly, excluding stuff confined to YouTube Red) and what I'm saying is that the creator of any given media has every right to decide which media channels it will be distributed through, at what cost, and via what channels be it iTunes, Patreon or Amazon or all of the above (as it's able to be.) You, for example, couldn't record all episodes of Last Week Tonight, and post them for sale on iTunes; the fact that HBO doesn't do that doesn't give you the right to then do it yourself, for profit or otherwise.
HBO does not need either to protect me from selling Copies of their content on iTunes.
EME and DRM is about preventing users from utilizing their rights under copyright law to format shift, time shift or consume content they paid for on the devices they desire, instead Hollywood wants to be able to charge the consumer no only for access to the content, but seperatly for each device, each view, each access, and be able to control when and where they view said content preventing users from view their content if they happen to travel internationally, or buy a device not blessed by Hollywood
none of which is allowed under Copyright law directly, but because of the provisions in DMCA preventing breaking of DRM they have illegitimately gained these rights and are using it to violate consumers fair use rights wholesale
So you believe "rights holders" rights are unlimited, and they should have the power to demand anything?
Surely not. "Right Holders" have only the very limited rights granted to them under copyright law, some people including myself believe they have too many rights but they sure as hell are not unlimited like you seem to imply. They do not get full and total control over their content, only the control allowed under copyright law which has many limits and exemptions including but not limited to fair use rights for the public, and a limited in duration term which they have those rights
The purpose of copyright law is NOT to protect the creator, it is promote useful sciences and exchange of knowledge. Copyright is to help promote creation FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD, not personal profit. People seem to forget that
Copyright today seems to be at odds with its constitutional purpose, its legal reason for existence