I worked in the online media space for a long time, and the fact of the matter is that DRM enabled the era of networks putting their content online, it enabled Netflix, etc. - DRM was the only way to get past the liability gridlock between content owners and distributors. Also, in practice DRM is bad for users only when its presence causes friction in the legitimate viewing process. It has a bad rap because, historically, it has almost always caused a lot of friction for legitimate users.
More fundamentally, DRM is a bandaid whose need arises from trying to apply traditional economic models (of buying and selling physical, tangible things) to digital assets that never wear out and cost /essentially/ nothing to duplicate and distribute. Even basic concepts of ownership and having possession of something don't really apply in the traditional way.
If we could start from scratch, what might work is a purely use-based model, where e.g. every time you listen to a song, you pay a tiny, tiny fee for it. This creates a much stronger correlation between creators providing value and consumers deriving value from what they created, which in the long term makes more sense anyway. There are a lot of hurdles to getting there, though. On the consumer side, the concept of paying-means-owning is pretty ingrained, so we balk at the idea of continuing to pay for something after we already bought it. On the creator/provider side, the price for each use is going to seem far lower than what they think is fair, again for largely the same reason.