I don't think nitpicking my hyperbolic use of everywhere is terribly useful. What's important is that you miss out on a very significant amount of culture and/or utility in both examples.
If you avoid cities to avoid smoking pedestrians, you miss out on all that cities have to offer. If you avoid software with DRM, you miss out on all that that software has to offer.
And in certain cases, you miss out on a great deal just to avoid a relatively minor inconvenience. Most people would rather just put up with the inconvenience than engage in a militant boycott, and since boycotts are toothless without a critical mass behind you, nothing changes when only a small minority engages in one.
That's why it's incumbent on us to use public policy to prohibit such anti-social behaviors rather than just let individuals and the market sort it out. That's why I feel there is a moral imperative to legally prohibit the use of DRM in most software contexts. The government must regulate what the market won't correct on its own.