Given that we are talking about digital files rather than physical goods, I don't think the first sale doctrine is the appropriate precedent to look for. Howeve

Given that we are talking about digital files rather than physical goods, I don't think the first sale doctrine is the appropriate precedent to look for. However, when you say, > If everyone could license the content at a reasonable price... ...I think you're touching another precedent: compulsory licensing (or statutory licensing, in UK parlance). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license This is an interesting idea, although it'd be tough to get the right people to agree to it. It also raises the question on just what streaming services would be competing on, if not content. UX, perhaps? My guess is that under a scenario like this, the price for any one service would be substantially higher than what we're paying now for Netflix and competitors. I'd personally be just fine with a service that had, say, a $30-40 month range, even if it were partially supported by ads the way Hulu is (although it'd be nicer if, like Hulu, you could pay a little more to make most of the ads go away).