I think probably the best way to get rid of modern DRM schemes is to think about a real solution to the root problems.
1) We have scare labour for Content Creation.
2) We have an economic system based on scarcity.
3) We have recently come to replicate perfectly and nearly-costlessly any Content
3.a) Therefore, Content, once Created, is not scarce.
Things like iTunes DRM (yes, I get it, some iTunes songs don't have DRM) attempt to address point 3 by eliminating the ability to make decent replicas.
Another alternative is to just say "fuck it", disallow all DRM, and everything's available for free. You'll note that not even Stardock really
does that, because you still need your CD key to get patches, etc.. This one comes in two flavours: still illegal, but no technical measures prevent copyright violations; and legalized, removing all copyright. There are some who would argue [weasel words
] in favour of the latter, arguing that ultimately you can still get a sustainable business this way, and I bet in some cases they are right. But I have a hard time believing that there will be no consequence to this that I would find undesirable. The former leaves a gaping unsolved problem.
Another is the Zune model: accept that all content can be accessed, but move the scarcity away from replication of Content over to the amount of time said Content (and its replicas) can be accessed, and sell that. It's still DRM, and an artificial limitation, but you're not being sold any expectation of permanence.
Another is to just coast along and let the current system stabilize where some things are DRM'd, some not, and the magical fairy hand of the free market will sort out which things "should" have DRM and which things "should not".
Another is to try to improve DRM so that: a) people know exactly the consequences of what they're buying and the limitations they are buying into, and b) it never, ever becomes a pain in the ass for a legitimate user. And then fuck the pirates, because they have no right to choose the economic system under which Content is distributed other than to just not buy and not enjoy.
Then there's the concert/theatre model, where generally Content is not actually distributed to users at all, and the only way to come see it is at a venue where you can't really get a good recording (especially without getting caught).
Or you put product placements or other practically-unremovable advertising within your song or movie and get paid primarily by sponsors, because original content containing your product can still be a scarce resource in an economy of endless replication. Obviously, that works out differently for different forms of media.
And last but not least (of the things that I can think of in the morning), remove point 2) and push the Canada model to its logical socialist limits, where you get the government to levy a tax on items required for Content replication, and use that money to pay Content providers according to some scheme. Perhaps the scheme could be set up to simulate the free market in some manner -- if it were adopted we could probably make free & easy official download sites that would make it fairly clear what media is getting the most downloads, although then there would need to be some protection against gaming the system. Honestly, I kind of like this one best because it sidesteps a lot of BS and it lays the remaining technical problems (eg. allocation) on the same people who had a problem to begin with: record companies, movie studios, etc. I'm sure it would be unpopular in many circles, though.