So I read the page, but find the argument VERY unconvincing. If that really was the goal of DRM, then you wouldn't need the really complicated schemes used. You

So I read the page, but find the argument VERY unconvincing. If that really was the goal of DRM, then you wouldn't need the really complicated schemes used. You just come up with a simple scheme that legally requires licensing and always use that. No need to keep switching schemes, adding more safeguards, and so forth. The content creators still get the same leverage over the legal distribution channels because they can still be forced to follow the rules outlined in the examples. That and it lowers your R&D costs on making complicated DRM. If the article is true, what have I missed?