So on the one hand, you were arguing that the current state of things, with "semi-rigid", easily-circumventable DRM, is preferable to a future-possibility of "hard" DRM, in which free software would be precluded from much content (did I follow you correctly?). Your argument then is that we should honour this semi-rigid DRM because not doing so risks inducing the possible-future.
On the other hand, you're arguing that the bad, possible-future is already developed and in place, just awaiting activation (though, Blu-Ray security is already broken, isn't it?). If so, then this undermines your other argument - the media companies are not waiting to see whether free software will honour their flags or not...
Personally, I think (and I think the poster you responded to may have been trying to make the same point) that it has been shown that DRM will fall by itself. In 2 dimensions:
a) Deployments of DRM will be automatically market-bounded in how restrictive they can be. Media which does not allow customers to engage in common acts will lose out and will either fail, or the rights-holders will have to relent and loosen the restrictions. We have already seen this with iTunes and others, and a general DRM backlash in the industry.
While tech-nerd opposition may have helped spread the word, there is no good reason to think it was free software that was exceptionally involved in this demonstrated backlash, and free-software honouring flags certainly had nothing to do with it..
b) DRM schemes will technically always be flawed and fail. This means the content owners will never be able to fully ring-fence their content.
I just don't see how giving rights-holders a sop of semi-rigid DRM affects either of those dimensions.