"The purpose of DRM is to give content providers leverage against creators of playback devices."
Yes...and?
The problem with this discussion is that it looks at this issue from one side only. It is kind of implied that content providers and creators are bad guys whilst us consumers are clearly the good guys, needlessly oppressed and restricted in our supposed "right" to consume all of the content in the world in the way we see fit.
Maybe, just maybe, this leverage is a necessary evil to actually keep the lights on. If you look at Netflix, they deliver a tremendous amount of value whilst only recently becoming profitable. We're talking single digit billions, which sounds like a lot, but really isn't. Content costs a fortune to produce and is risky.
As Netflix tries to monetize, yes they will experiment with arbitrary business models that can appear consumer-hostile. It may not make sense to you to pay more for using multiple screens. It is wrong to assume though that this "harm" is because Netflix enjoys harming you. It may simply be a model because other models fail.
A very "fair" model would be entirely usage-based. You pay for how much you match as well as taking account the value of the content you watch (the production cost). This model would completely fail. It's a morally pure and fair concept, yet would be rejected by consumers. It just shows how neither party is interested in fairness or morality.
Likewise, consumers normalize account sharing, VPN into low cost countries, and buy accounts from Alibaba. All to undermine the business model.
Let's not kid ourselves as if we're doing this as part of some human rights struggle. We're just trying to get access to commercial entertainment in the cheapest way possible. We're in absolutely no position to preach or lecture.