Without getting into philosophical arguments about the ethics of it, content-creators have a vested interest in wanting to preserve distribution rights for the product they are making. We can argue until we run out of breath about whether DRM is the right way for them to do it, about its technical limitations, etc., but the fact is that nobody has provided them with an alternative to DRM that they like, and we simply can't force them to adopt what we want them to do. To do so would be to run counter to the free speech argument that most people hold up as the reason they're opposed to DRM in the first place: they have a right to speak or not speak in whichever way they want.
Given that there's no way they're giving up on DRM in the current climate, we're left with another question: should that content be on the web or not? That's a question that you, the consumer, need to decide. Personally, I like Netflix, I subscribe to it, and I'm happy to pay for it, despite its being encumbered with DRM. I find i get good value from their service. To me, yes, they do belong on the web, and as long as there's consumers like me who believe that they should be allowed to pay their money for such a service, that service belongs on the web regardless of your individual ideology.
Now given the choice between an ecosystem where everybody has their proprietary apps and one where everybody uses the same app, I would happily take the second one. While the first method works fine for my Android phone, that's because Android has enough market penetration to actually be worth targetting. It's still a platform where not everybody has made the switch, but it's big enough that people are noticing it. The same cannot be said for my Linux-based laptop.
And that leaves me with a choice, as far as the laptop is concerned: I can give up on watching content like this on the laptop (not really an option), I can install Windows (which would require paying extra: the laptop came with Linux preinstalled and no license for Windows), or I can decide that allowing DRM into the web standard isn't that bad an idea, because it means a standard API for accessing the content and I don't have to worry about whether the provider will get around to building a specific client for my laptop.
I'd *like* it to be DRM-free, and some content is DRM-free (sites like youtube or blip.tv for example), I also recognize that there's content which isn't free that I want to be able to use. If you don't want it to have DRM, then I'll refer you back to my first paragraph, where you'll find the answer to how to get them to stop using it: give them something else that they like more.