You're fundamentally questioning the need for DRM - which is naive. Netflix AND the studios would go out of business in no time without the ability to protect their work.
I'm not sympathetic to the Studios who've historically been sharks, but Netflix (with DRM) is an equitable model - stream anywhere for a fixed monthly fee.
FYI - you can save Netflix shows for offline consumption, within the app
This is literally precisely what the music industry said. Repeatedly and ever more loudly as Apple in particular turned the screws. And then they did away with all DRM on buying digital music. Oh, turns out that was all a pile of bullshit, they didn't go out of business, and their motivation for DRM was not piracy but rather control. Their dream was to repeat the format change gold mine, where they could resell the same content over and over again. But in terms of selling once nope, DRM-free was no problem.
The fact that every video a streaming studio gets is available to pirates to download within moments of it becoming available suggests that DRM does not in fact give them anything but the appearance of security.
It's required by content providers and film studios as a matter of course, but has no reflection that it actually works in the real world.
Could you give an example (or many) since as you say the evidence is vast. I did a cursory search, and couldn't find sources, but perhaps I'm looking in the wrong places.
I can't find any musician, economist, or researcher who has ever complained about this, or suggested that DRM would help their financials.
Maybe they should. I think having open standards for collaboration is more important in the long run.