Software developer here, I'm as pro-digital media and anti-artificial scarcity as a lot of techies, but I think a certain amount of digital restrictions management is inevitable. The human race hasn't escaped to the glorious VR waifutopia just yet - we're still living in a meatspace world of scarce resources and property rights to control them.
You can't profit and create redeemable wealth counted towards GDP from any sort of creative work that can be infinitely copied - be it music, film, art, vidya, software, or unique inventions. So what's the creator left to do after investing time and money into a great work that becomes worthless, other than turn to legal protections, which are costly and incur backlash.
DRM is a technological solution to a technological problem. True, no DRM is truly safe from pirates who will crack it just once and produce a superior product. But it can be a semi-effective deterrent at least for a short launch window when most sales are to be made. I see DRM as fundamentally no different from encryption, obfuscation, and user permissions in Unix systems.
That being said, I think once pirates release a working crack a few days after launch, DRM should be removed from the official product. Ideally for software, after support ends or sales stagnate, the source code should be released as well. For games, the source could be free but the art assets would fall under copyright with a cheap license available for purchase - my model for open source, proprietary asset games would be DOOM.
If you think I'm a Jew for desiring to profit off software I devote hours and resources to produce, blame capitalism - not me. By definition, profit-hungry proprietary competitors to FOSS will almost always garner more power and resources, and the few exceptions like the Linux kernel, Apache, or Red Hat only reinforce the rule. It's a classic prisoners dilemma, actually, that surprises me why there are many open source projects at all.