DRM is mostly legal instrument. If you want to be able to sue people based on circumventing protections, courts need to consider your "content protection" "effective", which essentially means that it takes more than five minutes to circumvent. It also means that, since we're now talking about DRM that'll be protected by patents, copyright and obscurity/NDAs, that these DRM mechanisms centralize power to the owners of the DRM. This can then be easily leveraged to control and restrict e.g. the features playback devices may have.
If this were true, DRM would be trivial and made with easy to implement things like "detect if user right clicks, and pop up a message saying 'sorry copying not allowed'".
DRM is not that - a massive technical effort has gone into implementing DRM deep in system architectures. Modifications have been done across every layer of the stack, across hundreds of companies of differing goals.
You only go to that much effort, at that great a cost, if you are hoping for DRM to actually work, rather than just be a thing you can hold up in court and say "we tried to protect it your honor, we really did".
The "level of security" (~tech effort) is the main competitive selling point when DRM-vendors lobby studios for endorsement. The studios are probably partly being sold a pipe dream of "unbreakable DRM", but the person you responded to also has a point.
Weak or nonexistent DRM reduces the provable malicious intent of a ripper. The more effort it takes to break a DRM, the less likely it seems that you don't understand that what you are doing is wrong.
Recent events have shown that even simple google cypher may be effective.
Even more effective is modifying your product to fit customers by NOT region locking your content, by not splitting it over multiple platforms. Using law to pretend that the global network does not exist is simply dumb and leads to piracy. DRM won't save backwards digital rights owners.
