So big media sits in a vacuum in the web for your argument to hold water? Sounds pretty flimsy.
Put another way, if media companies didn't care about controlling media in any sort of effective way, why not remove all artificial limitations on skipping and have unlimited region support for the media in question? By your argument, these mechanisms cause zero benefit for them, and substantially reduce the enjoyment of their viewing public.
When we have the panacea of web DRM, will that mean I'll have first day access to new shows anywhere in the world? Will I be able to fast-forward, pause, rewind, skip, bookmark, comment on, etc.. these videos? Will I be able to legally transfer my right to watch purchased videos to a peer? Legally take excerpts from the video for humour / reviewing / commenting / archival purposes?
Put more pointedly, why would I support a framework that grants no new rights, and restricts ones I still currently have away? People bought into steam because they 'did it right', and the platform offers value. People bought into Google to browse and share data, because generally Google adds value to your browsing experience. You think Bing or Google's numerous past competitors couldn't catch up to Google eventually? Sure. But Google continually uses the data that YOU give it to make the service a better one.
Media corps on the other hand continually ask for more and give less, so I (and many others it seems) have decided to stop supporting their business model.