DRM in Retrospect

Has anyone else thought about the repercussions of DRM in regards to our future? Maybe this is an arcane thought, but what becomes of our media in 50 years when we have hardware and software saturated with DRM? Aside from all the other common sense and simple business minded arguments and opinions out there, I can’t help but think we are damaging our own history, in real time.
Say someone around my age is cleaning out their parents’ or grandparents’ attic for some reason, and come across a 50 year old film reel or record. Based on the technology of that day only the purchase price was required to access the media. Most any projector can show that film and most any turntable can play that record; it certainly makes enough sense. What about the same scenario for a hard drive from today, rediscovered in 50 years. If we further progress down the path on which we have apparently started, chances are you would need to reconstruct the media player to meet the drive’s specific DRM, or hold some piece of technology which could break all DRM after a certain date. Archival footage takes on a whole different meaning when we consider forcing students or history professors to pay for media accessed decades after creation. Or even force arbitrary tax today, with the knowledge that someone in the distant future will access without paying tribute.
Now I’m not seriously suggesting we are damaging the ability to access footage which will one day be considered historically meaningful. I am suggesting that DRM will need to be broken and stripped away. In some ways this sort of idiotic thinking makes me think of the fight against civil rights; seems weird, but bear with me. Why did some cities make the decision to maintain segregation long after the majority of the country had abandoned the practice? It would seem a logical person could ask themselves “Will this institution be accepted in the future?”, or “What will future generations think of these decisions?”.
The answer to such questions can only be desperate nostalgia/denial. Why else would otherwise logical businesses stick to such backward practices? Just as those last cities desperately fought the civil rights movement in opposition to popular opinion, big media is desperately trying to maintain its own archaic institutions. I’m not necessarily saying all media should be shared freely with no compensation to the creators, distributors, etc. I am saying changes must be made, and delaying that change only increasingly damages those very people each day.
It doesn’t seem like such a difficult question to ask yourself, if you are leading a big media company. “How do my decisions today affect me tomorrow?” It seems to me to be basic strategic planning/thinking, taught daily in business schools around the world. Obviously it’s a slow progression which leads people into these indefensible situations, but at some point you either go down with the ship or enact a plan to save yourself. Of course I think, once enough money is lost and enough customers are totally alienated, they will change their ways. The eventual billion dollar question is how much will they lose in that time?