Yes it does. We bought a lot of kids movies on iTunes, and then I couldn't play them back because a device was not authorized (I bought it on my iPhone, so it doesn't work on my girlfriends iPad), or because the internet didn't work, or because iTunes was broken after upgrading to a new OS, ... it's so frustrating when you have a collection of video files on a USB stick that you paid for and you can't watch them.
Download of software without license/approval (so illegal download) is prohibited.
I think it seems immoral but the more I think about it, it's not.
A corporation (like a studio) and capitalist system (like hollywood movie making) doesn't operate with morality. It seeks to gain the largest profit without regard to morality.
If these movie companies reached a fair profit point and made the movie free afterwards you could make the point they acted with balance. If they shared profits with society morality could be an issue.
But they try to make as much profit as the market will allow. They act without morality. Therefore you cannot assigned a morality value to your interactions with such entities.
It is not immoral to pirate (even if it is illegal in some places).
It isn't definitive that piracy actually causes any significant or definitive harm to large organisations. It fact in many circumstances the effect can be reversed - those who pirate films are also more likely to watch them and to encourage others to watch them.
Without a definitive answer to the harm question, you can't definitively assess the morality side of the question.
I only had this happen a long time ago with a iTunes code-provided copy of Shrek. Every other movie I’ve purchased has worked across generations of devices and stuff since the first iPad. I’m curious if I’m just lucky?
Ah, isn't DRM beautiful. I'm reminded of a time when a man sitting next to me on a flight couldn't play any downloaded content on his tablet he was not in his home region. Gee, people fly to places outside their home, what a surprise!
Of course, a somewhat surprising to me number of people will also subscribe to a service, binge-watch a show, and then cancel.
Nothing wrong with doing that of course and I imagine for most people, subscriptions are pretty sticky. (That assumption is probably bolstered by the observation that Netflix and HBO don't offer annual subscriptions at a discount AFAIK.)
For purchasing films and TV series I just buy a DVD a lot of the time. With Blu-Ray, the quality is probably better and I can lend it, etc.
The download & cancel combo is more surprising, because it takes significantly more effort, and people prefer less friction.
Binge & cancel is the least friction for most people, so it makes the most sense for them. Especially when they don't want to track your subscription along with the rest of their bills.
For purchasing films, stuff like iTunes & Google Movies are still pretty good bets, they do have quite a lot.
Streaming often falls under public performance and a few other more restrictive contracts, making it harder.
As to why a mass-streaming service like Netflix doesn't offer both, usually, then it's simple - you want people to continue paying. The business model depends on people not signing up, downloading, and then cancelling.
In my experience a surprising number of people are willing to do that. (Doesn't stop me offering it, however.)
---
As for DRM with videos... Hollywood truly, truly despises the idea of DRM-free. I've looked at few contracts for film collections recently, and every contract I saw _required_ the use of DRM. It wasn't a negotiable point.
Which is mostly theatre. Bypassing DRM does not take significant effort. It can never truly prevent theft (ignoring any definition of theft), and is massively anti-consumer in the way it breaks. It hurts real customers and doesn't hurt pirates.
All the same, it's a hard rule with most national film associations.