You're likely being down voted for not adding to the conversation, and simply trying to cheerlead.
No, any DRM deserves such treatment. It's not more nonsense than DRM treating all its users as potential criminals by default. It's a symmetrical response.
And, all sensible security experts agree that DRM never makes security better - on the contrary, it always makes it worse.
I dislike DRM, and clearly envision a day where it's no longer used. But your argument doesn't address the article, nor does it add any value to the DRM conversation as a whole. Again, cheerleading.
> It is nonsense, treating a user as a criminal is not a security threat. DRM is just encryption
Tell it to these folks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_rootkit
Or to security experts: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/drm_in_window...
DRM is obviously a security threat because of its very nature.
Here it's put in easy to understand terms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgFbqSYdNK4
Practice proves that point spectacularly, because DRM always has an overreaching unethical nature (since it's an overreaching preemptive policing which uses the logic of presumption of guilt). As the Sony exec voiced the core idea behind DRM:
> We will develop technology that transcends the individual user. We will firewall Napster at source - we will block it at your cable company. We will block it at your phone company. We will block it at your ISP. We will firewall it at your PC... These strategies are being aggressively pursued because there is simply too much at stake.
(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_rootkit#Background ).
I.e. overreaching nature of DRM straight from the DRM proponents mouth. And it applies to all DRM by its very definition.
And what is a criteria of "adding to the conversation" in this context? I see downvotes here as a nervous reaction of those who are blind to DRM (a valid reason to view it as a threat), but suddenly feel offended when Netflix is pictured as a threat for invalid reasons.