Quite a bit late on this one but I just can't resist, which is a rarity -- I almost always resist the urge to post comments on K5, even if I do visit many times a day. On with the meat, though.
All the hypotheticals and straw men aside, there seems to me to be only one problem (that has any merit to it) with any DRM system; Namely, the "personal future use" problem, and only with software.
The website your favorite software accesses may disappear, and end up taking the software with it.
Music movies, and other standalone entertainment style mediums absolutely cannot be protected 100%, in other words, there cannot possibly exist a copy protection scheme for audiovisual media that cannot be defeated.
So look at DRM in the light of what it actually is -- an attempt to defeat the "casual" copier. Today, "casual" copying is more sophisticated than ever, and equally sophisticated protection mechanisms are needed to protect the content.
If you want to blame anything, blame "free and open society" for this problem. As much as you may not want to hear it, when the latest linux golden boy hacker defeats a DRM scheme and releases it to the public, that method of DRM defeat goes into the toolbox of the casual copier.
I'm not stating a point of view here about information freedom, I'm a firm believer in it the vast majority of the time, this time included, but if you don't see the causal relationship, you're just deluding yourself.
I, like a few others, am not at all concerned about not being able to:
1. Not listen to my favorite CD 10 years from now. Copying will always be possible of audio media, no way around it.
2. Not watch my favorite movie 10 years from now. See above.
3. Not use some piece of dodgy software, great today, garbage tomorrow, 10 years from now. Chances are if there is still a demand for that kind of software, there will be an alternative available.
As for software, well, I am a developer. I will implement any DRM, integrity checking, copy protection, etc. scheme I damn well please in my software. I will charge as much or as little as I like, and I will make the source available or not according to my own whims.
Anyone who doesn't like this is free... to not use my software. The same applies to any manner of art be it painting, photography, music, movies, and so on.
Mozart, Picasso, etc. didn't have this concern in their time. I wonder, what Mozart WOULD have done if, at the time, anyone could have simply recorded his performances, duplicated the recording, and then provided it to everyone on Earth that asked for it?
Applying any critical thought at all to this "problem" of DRMs and our "future locked" entertainment will reveal one simple bit of reality. There is no problem.
For my part, I'll continue to pay for movies, music, and software if I consider it worth the price. If not, I'll live without it.
I don't give a second thought to "big label vs. indy" or "commercial vs. GPL" when making a decision. I find what I like, then decide if I like it enough to pay the price.