I always turn off DRM. If the content is only available via DRM, I won't watch it. End of story.

My ISP also offers TV for "free". I used to watch it, but recently they switched to a DRM player and I won't use it anymore. I told them about this, but they don't care. My attention is better spent somewhere else.

Why does adding DRM change something's status under DMCA? Either way, I don't even compile Widevine into my browser so I guess I'd just be locked out of those sites.

DMCA Section 1201 criminalizes breaking any “technological protection measures” of any kind, unless there is an exception for it on a list decided by a librarian that changes every 3 years. It’s absurd.

I guess my question is more specifically why something like Widevine falls under this, but commonly used anti-adblocking scripts (that are still regularly blocked by ad-blockers) don't. Are anti-adblockers on that exception list you refer to?

Because the DMCA says that if you try to use property you own as if you own it, and that property came with DRM, you are a criminal. Stop thinking you own things pleb, that's not for people of your class and the masters decided to put an end to that nonsense.

(the thing you want to google for a non-snarky explanation: "anti-circumvention provision")