DRM and Freetards
DRM ultimately exists to protect against freetards; the people who would rather take for free than paying. In that sense - in the society we live in which is monetarily based - it is understandable and I would say acceptable in principle.
The problem is that DRM is usually too restrictive, goes against what people believe are their rights; the right to have backups, the right to use with other media and readers or players, the right to share what they have bought and consider they own.
Most people who bought a vinyl album and copied it to tape to preserve the album don't consider themselves freetards, most who rip CD's to play in-car or on their MP3 players don't see themselves as freetards, those who lend a CD or DVD to friends on a "you must see ( should buy ) this" basis don't see themselves as freetards -- That is really the right to have multiple copies providing only one is used at any time principle.
There are however those who do want to take and to never pay.
There has always been illegal / unauthorised copying and sharing and likely always will be. With technology changes that has become much easier; the having multiple copies but only one used at a time is harder to ensure or enforce.
The question for those who are anti-DRM is whether they are against DRM per se or are against DRM because it is often too restrictive.
If people accept those never intending to pay should not get a free run without sanction then what do they propose as a workable system which is fit for purpose to protect creator's and publisher's rights and revenues while granting reasonable rights to end-users ?
Ultimately it may be that the best DRM is that which locks what you've bought to yourself as an individual with the right to transfer ownership of those rights. That more balances the 'do anything you want personally' with the content while preventing unlimited sharing.
Of course, true freetards will never be happy with any system which prevents them getting something for nothing.