> Using your reasoning, only a small subset of people are genuinely affected by the Section 1201 implications - security researchers in particular.

Using your reasoning, only a small subset of people would be genuinely affected by a ban on medical research - medical researchers in particular.

Security researchers don't do security research for the sake of it, but to make information technology more secure. When they find a security problem that allows criminals to compromise your system, to steal your data, to break into your bank account, whatever, they publish those findings to allow you to protect yourself, and to allow people building those vulnerable systems to fix them (and to pressure them into actually fixing them, as vendors usually don't fix vulnerabilities without the threat of them becoming public). So, the current state of the DMCA means more security vulnerabilities in everyone's computers/smartphones, including your very own, and in the servers that you rely on and store your data on. So much for only affecting a small subset of people.

> Again, you also in some ways prove my point by mentioning that DRM work-arounds are nearly a daily occurrence in certain arenas.

Which doesn't really make it a good idea to keep them illegal? Just because it's usually not enforced, doesn't mean there is no risk for those using the workarounds.

> What you are missing, which is extremely important, is that Copyright is a synthetic construct and therefore absolutely useless without any protectionist mechanism.

First of all, much of the legal system is a synthetic construct. But most of the legal system works just fine without "protectionist mechanisms" of the severity of DRM. Is it illegal to stab people with a knife? Yes. Do we forbid passing on knowledge about how to create a knife? No. There is no mechanism that actually hinders people from stabbing other people. It's only a synthetic construct and punishment if you don't follow the rules.

But also, it's just not true. Copyright was not useless before DRM or the DMCA. There were more than enough cases of people being successfully sued, or even prosecuted and convicted, for selling unauthorized copies of works.

It's a basic principle of a free society that you don't do everything that would technically be possible to enforce the law, but you rather accept that the reach of the law is limited, in order to achieve freedom. The law is that you aren't allowed to murder people. It would probably be technically possible to prevent almost all murder by chaining everyone to their beds. But we don't do that. We instead accept that some murders will happen that could be prevented this way in order to gain freedom. That does not mean that the law against murder is useless.

> AKA "the right to make copies" - DRM is just that - a mechanism to protect the right of the originator to, under Copyright law, retain power over the "Intellectual Property."

Yes, it is, and it is a highly unfair and overreaching mechanism. It's a mechanism to retain power at a high cost to the other/controlled side. It's taking away everyone's power and freedom in order to enforce that one interest.

> I believe it's counter-productive, or maybe even logically dishonest, to claim that destroying DRM isn't extremely intertwined with Copyright as we know it.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed otherwise? Destroying (aka abolishing) slavery was extremely intertwined with property laws as we know them. That does not mean that property law, or copyright law, cannot work without slavery, or DRM.