I don't think DRM is necessarily and it just seems like an unnecessary hassle, but unlike things that you actually bought a perpetual license to (DVDs, CDs, games, etc.) it's really not that big of a deal.
This 'free internet' is yet another myth and DRM is here to stay with the web being dominated by Chrome's widespread usage as it was previously done by Microsoft Internet Explorer.
There was a strong and long debate about the pros and cons. One of the strongest argument against was this here, including interoperability. I believe Cory Doctorow has also written multiple articles against DRM. I agree that DRM is generally bad.
However, the arguments for implementing it were the following: at least two other browsers will adopt the tech and that will allow it (per W3C process) to graduate from a Candidate Recommendation to a full Recommendation, making it part of the web platform.
On top, what would it mean for marketshare if people had to install a second browser just for watching movies? Would the non technical users accept and understand this without switching to a browser that they’d consider "actually feature complete"?
As I haven’t seen other websites than such movie streaming sites using DRM, I don’t think it’s another mail in the coffin. It doesn’t actively hurt anyone, and it does not stop shows to be ripped and released on tpb. It’s just an alibi for movie makers.
So, what’s the fuss about it?
As you pointed out, content will still be ripped so, once again, this only serves to inconvenience the users. But browsers won't force you to use netflix & al. so it's up to the user to not use those sites.
If I'm gonna shout at firefox, the fact that they aren't first implementing CSS features that the internet has been waiting for forever is probably a better reason.
