>>Remove competition among manufacturers because nobody can legally build and sell a compatible player without the key's owner permission.
>And what are media producers gaining from less competition among manufacturers?
It becomes much easier to impose restriction on costumers. These restrictions end up forcing the costumer to pay more or more than once for content.
>>Remove competition among distributors because media producers can refuse giving permission to distribute their media without agreeing to whatever terms they impose.
>They don't need DRM for that, copyright is enough.
Right, but copyright law doesn't prevents me from owning backup copies of content I bought, copyright law doesn't force me to pay periodically to have the right to listen to something, copyright law doesn't force me to watch a content using certified devices only, copyright law doesn't prevent me from legally creating and selling a player for a content... DRM does.
>>Remove competition among media distributors by creating silos of content where you can't find one or another title. Today, if you want to have reasonable access to media, you'll have to sign more than one stream service; compare this to how you could go to a rental store 15 years ago and choose media from many different producers.
>15 years ago DRM was already a thing (albeit badly implemented) and it's really not DRM that killed rental stores. The internet did. Exclusive contracts is what's killing competition among media distributors.
DRM makes it much easier for silos to thrive. For example, I can not re-sell, I can not rent, I can not watch on a non-certified device, I can not use it on a device which has all required anti-features to be allowed to play an specific content.