Studying DRM (Digital Restrictions Management) as a matter of forcing bad user interfaces, by looking at how users have complained about it.

The article's basic stance is to oppose DRM. Yet it is full of pro-DRM propaganda tropes, such as "Digital Rights Management" and the claim that it "protects copyrighted works", and that defeating it is "circumvention". Why repeat the propaganda for what you are trying to oppose?

I suppose the author used those terms bowing to the widespread perception that they are the "correct" terminology, and that other terminology would be seen as "incorrect". What a deep and broad advantage that gives to the perpetrators of DRM! To take away the power of this supposed rule of correct speech, we must refuse to follow it.

The paywalled paper that the author published studied the public's responses to the triennial invitation to argue for exceptions to part of the DMCA. These exceptions, when granted, are temporary (they last only three years) and incomplete (they legalize certain copying but don't legalize the device needed to do it), so this invitation is not a real opportunity to push for substantive change. It is simply a distraction.

Don't be distracted! Join the FSF in condemning DRM, and calling for repeal of the part of the DMCA that prohibits devices to break DRM. Why not phone your congresscritter's office now?

To fully eliminate the injustice of DRM, let's make DRM a felony.