I don't think a concern with what I do to content - nor the right to do so - is "Big Brother Speculation" at all, SS. The idea here is to prevent piracy, right? So, modifying content to repackage it for resale could be part of what they are trying to prevent.

There is not a single item I have bought anywhere at any point that I use as is. I mod most things somewhat, a lot of things heavily, so much so the original developer would be hard put to identify as his or hers. I mess with stuff. Transmaps, UVmaps, objs, shaders, everything. This is why the installer is so little of an issue: the installer dumps everything into this dummy folder from which I only take what I want and put it where I like and use tools to make the content work for me, like PFE and Blender.
Why do I do this? PP2012 doesn't render skin shaders with light blue in diffuse_Color very nicely. Or hair with gamma_value set to renderer default either:needs to be 1. Or Reflection_Lite_Mult on. Ot Filtering set to quality when it should be set to Crisp.

But now with a proposal that content be encrypted and you will never really have access to it, since the actual item is somewhere in a Daz cloud and all you see is an instance of it, an encrypted instance to prevent theft, means it is no longer yours to mess with.
For those few of us who don't do the load-pose-render thing, this is not going to work. Yes, we are in the minority. Clearly. Daz apparently have hordes of new customers who are happy to use content as is.

Which worries me.

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks