People value privacy for reasons other than laws or shame. Really. And some people practice privacy to a greater extent just for practice, and because what they do is not anyone else's goddamned business.
They certainly chose a ridiculous way to effect the DRM enforcement. As long as it remains as is, the software is essentially useless. You can lose all your work because of (maybe) malware? When almost all code is written to the "good enough" standard (for varying values of "good enough") unintended consequences are to be expected. So, minus one hundred for implementation.
This is why backups are important. And why the types of DRM that make backups difficult or impossible add yet another layer of "don't buy me" to such products.
The company certainly responded reasonably in communication, which is nice, but not so much in practice, which still leaves their product highly suspect.
Hypothesize all you want. What was done wasn't breaking in to anything. No one had to crack a password or change permissions or trawl a raw database. There was no cracking, white or black hatted, involved.
And, seriously, everyone needs to quit equivocating (in bad metaphors, especially) things which are not remotely equivalent, but to which they have similar emotional reactions.
Now, if some actual breaching were involved, you might be able to stretch this into being akin to a B&E. But no, not even close. It's more like dancing naked in your all-glass house and just expecting no one to look. If there is a crime in that situation, is isn't on the part of the onlookers, even if they now specifically visit your neighborhood to see you dance.
Yep. If someone has unprotected directories which they intend to remain hidden, and you simply remove one directory level in a URL exposing the (not intended for access) parent directory, you are a criminal hax0r deserving a flogging, three beatings, and twenty years in prison (maximum security).
That's because some people refuse to be corrected, others are simply lazy or contrary for the sake of being contrary, while others still are intent on using "hacker" with no qualifier (e.g., malicious) for such purposes as they believe it serves their interests.
Queue up all the "language evolves" whingers and the rest of the meta-contrarians with low-quality arguments.