Anyway, it's not even the case here! Netflix has no plans for purchasing, so there is no segmenting there at all.
You mean profit? The reason that businesses exist? That is, the distinction that is literally in the description of for-profit corporations?
Copyright law provides for the difference between a one-time and perpetual license for content. Clearly, viewing content multiple times is more valuable than watching it once, and thus is appropriate for price differentiation.
The fact that the company could take less profit by marking both as the same low price is irrelevant.
"Appropriate" is questionable. I already explained above. What is "appropriate" for raising a price? Or what can be called fair pricing? I don't consider raising the price fair, when the merchant has no difference in expenses. It's called a rip off. It is not irrelevant and as I said, it usually happens only when competition is weak. Healthy market tends to prevent such bad behavior, because completion could successfully use the lower price for both cases and all customers would prefer them.
It doesn't make 'sense' too. Maybe in the very long term you are right and software as well as digital goods can be consumed for free (or via paying a special tax)
So that you can segment the buyers into two: Those who want to see a movie only once and those who want to see it more than once. This way, you can double charge the second segment and use those funds to reduce the price for the first segment. Classic market segmentation.
As long as there are customers of both kind, rentals (even for digital goods) will make sense.