I have often used an analogy to other multi-use hardware such as guns or automobiles when discussing issues relating to information technology. There are Members of Parliament who oppose the Gun Registry on the grounds that gun owners should not be hassled with registration. I have asked how they would feel if a gun owner had to get permission from someone else (say, an animal rights activist) before the gun would fire. This is the equivalent of DRM, with the obvious difference being that reasonable people (Meaning: not CRIA or other extremists) recognize that abusing a gun is far more dangerous than abusing communications technology.
On the similar topic there is an article about a patent on passwword protected bullets. I further ask the question: what if it was not the owner of the gun that was the keeper of the password, but the manufacturer of the gun who was making deals with the anti-gun lobby to limit the ability of guns to ever fire?
DRM on guns could be far more easily justified than DRM on information technology. Which is more important: saving lives or protecting outdated business models?