To me there is a step difference between things like DRM it activation count limit vs disowning the user from his PC. One is creating a channel for bona fide purchases of licenses (you don’t need to buy music with DRM, it’s fair enough if vendors want to limit distribution of a product to the original buyer). The other builds spyware into everything you do with your computer and takes away control of it from you.
The analogy would hold if, dunno, buying some DRM Music also made you relinquish the ownership of your speakers to the vendor. It’s not quite as bad.
I can't agree with you here, and in fact, I think this comment is proof of a shifted overton window. You are correct that things are not as blatant as now, of course
DRM is, for example, a way to kill the second hand market or lending. I can sell my table without approval from its manufacturer, or drag it to my neighbours for a day. I can't sell my songs.
In the same spirit, if I as a computer enthousiast want to upgrade my computer hardware or reinstall windows, I should not depend on microsoft's goodwill.
I see your point, but I still think a difference remains. “Do you want to buy this non essential thing from me, that you can also buy elsewhere, with some restrictive conditions on license and reuse” is, in my eyes, a valid and honest proposal (potentially unattractive but that’s a different story). Take it or leave it. Exploiting a monopoly to force people, largely unknowingly, to surrender huge amounts of data and control over their computer, when there isn’t a practical choice (for most people it’s not really an option to switch to Linux or Mac, they are not fungible products) is a different cup of tea.
The analogy would hold if, dunno, buying some DRM Music also made you relinquish the ownership of your speakers to the vendor. It’s not quite as bad.