It's like saying banning handguns would be pointless because bad guys can get guns.
Well: Supply and Demand, if it's harder to get guns, their will be less of them.
In Canada, where there is strict rules around handguns - and they are actually enforced (unlike, say Mexico where they're banned but gov. can't enforce it) - there is a lot less 'handgun related crime' and very few handguns floating around.
(I'm not making an ideological statement about gun laws here, just using it as an example)
Most people don't know how to get around DRM, or consider it 'somewhat immoral' and won't do it.
The idea that 'all content should be free' is an interesting popular intellectual phenom. If you've actually ever created something yourself, and had someone steal it under this ideology, then it really 'brings home' how much it's not a very fair concept at all.
As much as I hate Disney - if they make some dumb film - it's theirs to sell and control. That film is not public property.
People don't want to pay for stuff, and they don't want ads (i.e. ad blockers) - well - the 'long run' economic case is that there is no content. And there is no way around this (i.e. some make the argument that bands should just give away their music and make their money playing live, but this is not realistic for 99.9% of creations)
In the 'creative economy' - where even software is a creative function - then stuff can't be free.
Firefox is only possible because Google gives them money - from their ads.
Can DRM and excessive IP protections hurt everyone - absolutely. But that does't mean they are not necessary.
The #1 issue in the creative economy going forward relates to this - how we can effectively, responsibly and fairly manage IP. We have to deal with it, we can't take the naive position that 'all the stuff should be free to me because I don't want to pay for it'.