I am perplexed: is the author against DRM itself or only against the ways it is being misused?
Should everyone have the right to read Harry Potter without paying Rowling a dime? Because overpriced textbooks is a problem of US' universities, not of the fact that you should not use someone else's work for free.
There is a false dichotomy. It's not either DRM or poverty. The only way to make sure Rowling gets paid isn't to DRM e-books. In fact, I'd venture that the vast majority of her fortune isn't due to DRM.
The issue at hand is not one-sided. The side most often heard is the side in favor of copyright and DRM.
This is a cautionary tale. Not only does it eloquently explain the potential problems with copyright enforcement, it poignantly predicted the ones that exist today.
Should everyone have the right to read Harry Potter without paying Rowling a dime? Because overpriced textbooks is a problem of US' universities, not of the fact that you should not use someone else's work for free.