Thinly veiled vaporous attempt at DRM control.
"So far, the necessary web of deals allowing for that complex transaction has not been set up."
This will be much more difficult than the company imagines.
Additionally, there are risks to the end-user:
The media industries have made an uncomfortable bed for themselves and are now trying to cushion it. By refusing to divorce "viewing/listening rights" from hard media for a decade (or two) after the world had the capabilities to do so, they have fallen behind on the concept of "locker" storage of media or even of maintaining centralized list of purchased "viewing/listening rights". Since it is so cheap to buy and store a FILE, the public wants to own the FILE (hard media) and mistrusts most attempts for a 3rd party to manage a customer's right to enjoy already-purchased media. (Amazon loses your purchase, or company xyz goes out of business and all your purchases are gone). Instead, people either buy DVD or download the vid file themselves and store it at home, just like they used to buy albums or cassettes or VHSs or CDs. Netflix has successfully launched an unlimited-but-throttled subscription model, but that only seems to work with low-demand titles. Now, give me a VERYLARGE locker for vids that I can sync with my already-purchased files, held locally, without DRM and without any sniffing at all of where I purchased the file, and maybe i will use it (like mp3tunes). When UltraViolet has a "blip" and refuses rights for one user to view the movie they just paid $5 to watch, they will abandon it. The first time someone is caught by UltraViolet for having an illegal download of a vid or a DVDRip and it hits the news, the public will backlash and it will die.