If they paying customer would pay anyway, it is punishing, because it requires that they: are limited to the set of browsers that support the DRM scheme, are limited to the platforms that the DRM scheme is available for, and perhaps most importantly, the content provider can dictate rules that may not considered to be entirely fair. E.g. Netflix makes it impossible to temporarily download a copy to view when you don't have a (high-bandwidth) internet connection (e.g. those of us traveling a lot outside their country).
Also, if DRM was not supported by the technology companies, it would be more attractive to come up with a form of subscription that would offer both streaming and downloading.
'Pirating' doesn't have all these downsides.
Of course, on the flip-side for many people DRM-ed 7.99 p/m streaming services are more price-effective than the previous 7.99 per album DRM-free purchases. But you may be left out if you run FreeBSD or Linux on non-x86_64.
How is that punishing a paying customer?
Just like games, pirates don't have issues with online license verification,since they play pirated games that got rid of them.
Obviously vendors did a nice job not only brainwashing the legislator but also the client.
I think that we are remembering "DRM" from the days of DRM'd downloads, which was a terrible thing, and applying that memory here where it does not fit.
It's a quirk of classical information theory that you can't transmit a piece of data for a limited period of time. As an approximation, they apply a silly DRM scheme that takes time to break, and ask customers if they are willing to pay for time-limited access.
Unlike with DRM on music downloads or (worse) physical copies of software or games, there's no expectations mismatch here. If you sell a download, the average buyer expects to be able to copy that download, etc. If you stream a movie, the average buyer no more expects to be able to retain a copy than the average movie-ticket holder does. They didn't think they paid for a copy of those bits for all time.
There's nothing stopping someone who visits a movie theater from doing whatever they want with those photons, other than the time to build a sufficiently concealed camera, is there? And pirates do show up to movie premieres with concealed cameras... but would you argue that the security guards stopping you from carrying in a giant camcorder are "punishing paying customers" while not effectively deterring pirates?