I find this to be utterly false. Even if I used my computer for nothing else but watching videos, if DRM started to get annoying I would simply switch to watch other videos (e.g. from YouTube to Vimeo or whatever). And I could also stop to watch videos and use my computer for something else. That claim is complete garbage!
But okay, let’s say that’s the case. DRM is eeeevil. Then I switch to some other topic here where copyrights are discussed and there people claim that if digital content authors want to protect their content, they simply shouldn’t distribute it widely so that people get a chance to copy it. This in effect means private showings for the rich. But no, that’s not “inclusive”, say some. They have the right (I don’t know what kind of right, but whatever) to go to the artist’s home and make a copy.
A real twilight zone!
By the way, the linked article is about fascism in local governments and is not related to DRM. Last time I checked noone had to install any DRM software (or use a video player that uses DRM software that may be installed).
I assume Cory as a sheriff would fine all those who want to use DRM on their computer so that they don’t have to travel to LA for a private showing of some new movie?
What other ways of protection there are, except control? Tipjars?