Your argument is predicated on the assumption that all DRM is bad, which is just simply not reality.
Many companies implement DRM in ways that are poor, excessive, overreaching, needlessly restrictive, etc. .. and yes, while poor implementations are frequent, it does not mean that DRM itself is worthless or an enemy of society.
In fact, good implementations of DRM are exactly what is needed in order to prevent hackers from stealing your most valuable digital assets.
The issue is that in conversation DRM is used as a perjorative, whereas terms like data loss prevention are somehow seen as non-malicious, even though it is the same core idea.
We use Microsoft Information Protection solutions for all of our important documents which includes things like sensitivity labels which ensure only the users that have been appropriate clearance can view them.
People can e-mail the documents or do whatever they want with them, and Microsoft's DRM ensures that only the users that have access are able to view them.
The whole thing is totally seamless and requires no extra effort on the part of the users.
Our corporate documents can't be stolen without comprimising both someone's account and two-factor authentication.
Many companies implement DRM in ways that are poor, excessive, overreaching, needlessly restrictive, etc. .. and yes, while poor implementations are frequent, it does not mean that DRM itself is worthless or an enemy of society.
In fact, good implementations of DRM are exactly what is needed in order to prevent hackers from stealing your most valuable digital assets.
The issue is that in conversation DRM is used as a perjorative, whereas terms like data loss prevention are somehow seen as non-malicious, even though it is the same core idea.