DRM
is broken as a theoretical construct.
MD5 is broken, but the concept of cryptographic hashes is solid. There's no theoretical problem with the idea of a function where f(a) != f(b) implies a != b to an extremely high probability. The only trick is coming up with real-world systems which approach the theoretical ideal.
DRM, on the other hand, is a theoretical impossibility. It aims to show content without allowing it to be copied, which is a concept that makes no sense. In practice it can work to an extent, but this is only done by coming up with real-world systems which run in the opposite direction from the theoretical ideal.
I'm not at all convinced that business owners couldn't care less. They keep raising the bar, both technologically and legally. Breaking DRM, even for purposes that would otherwise be legitimate, has been illegal in the US for over a decade now. And this is ultimately the crux of the problem, and what causes people to frustratedly declare that DRM is a broken concept. It is a crime to express certain mathematical concepts, and the only reason that's the case is because businesses make up for the lack of theoretical rigor in DRM by bringing in the power of the law.
Imagine if the cryptographic community's response to the break of MD5 was to lobby for a law that made it illegal to generate hash collisions or create or distribute code that could do that, because theory prohibited anything substantially better than MD5 from being produced. MD5 is still a useful hash through the present day and well into the future, but in that hypothetical and counter-factual situation, I think it would be reasonable to call the concept of cryptographic hashing broken.