It's the truth standpoint. DRM is an overreaching preemptive policing, i.e. by its mere definition it's always aimed against the user, therefore it's always an anti-feature.
Things like fourth amendment exist for a simple reason that overreaching policing skews into being abusive. Police could always argue abusive policing "helps prevent crime" same as copyright maximalists could argue DRM "helps prevent piracy". But both would be invalid due to overreaching nature or such policing.
To put this concept into perspective. DRM runs on your personal device, in your personal digital space, for the benefit of someone who tries to police you, treating you as an a priory criminal. So conceptually it's not any better than what fourth amendment is aimed to prevent.
Excusing such concepts with "market forces" is simply cringe.
Things like fourth amendment exist for a simple reason that overreaching policing skews into being abusive. Police could always argue abusive policing "helps prevent crime" same as copyright maximalists could argue DRM "helps prevent piracy". But both would be invalid due to overreaching nature or such policing.
To put this concept into perspective. DRM runs on your personal device, in your personal digital space, for the benefit of someone who tries to police you, treating you as an a priory criminal. So conceptually it's not any better than what fourth amendment is aimed to prevent.
Excusing such concepts with "market forces" is simply cringe.