As someone else has said, in theory I am in agreement with Stallman on this, but his obsession with using weird language and trying to coin alt-phrases in every fucking sentence makes me disagree with how he's trying to make his point.
The same goes for terms like Copy protection, DRM, etc.
Stallman is publishing his views with an obviously adult audience in mind, but the way he explains things is as if he were explaining it to children.
If you're talking an adult audience, it's a reasonable expectation that they would understand (once told) the concept that the "rights" in DRM mean the rights of the creator/producer, rather than the rights of the listener/viewer, or that "copy protection" is a method to prevent the creation of copied works.
This whole thing honestly sounds like his approach to software licenses as well. Stallman and his followers have claimed that when software is released under a less restrictive license, it's a terrible loss, because anyone else can then come along and use that software for whatever they want, including for-profit products that include their own improvements that are not released as open source.
Having that view point is a personal choice, and I don't have any issue with you for it, but more often than not any discussed of a permissive vs copyleft licenses ends up in claims that choosing MIT/BSD/etc is "wrong". And suddenly the picture gets clearer:
Stallman's ideas are not just his ideas, they're basically his religion, and if you don't join his religion (i.e. subscribe to his ideas, you're wrong, because you couldn't possibly be as smart as he is. We are but mindless children who cannot possibly have made an informed, educated decision about something, if our opinion on something differs from his.