You're responding to a bunch of things I didn't say and don't believe. I'm not a fan of DRM, just defending the position that RMS isn't the best source on it.
Also, you yourself haven't made an argument that DRM is anywhere near as bad a problem as slavery was. It's nowhere close, and to imply otherwise is to cheapen the suffering of slaves in America. Is that enough of an argument that it's a red herring?
> Also, you yourself haven't made an argument that DRM is anywhere near as bad a problem as slavery was.
This judgment was made with perfect hindsight in one case, and no hindsight in the other, so the conclusion is immediately suspect.
Like I said, consider the worst possible nightmare for DRM, and then judge whether the comparison is actually fair.
Finally, whether RMS is the best source on it is itself a red herring. If he makes a reasonable case for a nightmare outcome, his perspective is absolutely worth considering when weighing the pros and cons of DRM, regardless of how absolutist you think he is.
Also, you yourself haven't made an argument that DRM is anywhere near as bad a problem as slavery was. It's nowhere close, and to imply otherwise is to cheapen the suffering of slaves in America. Is that enough of an argument that it's a red herring?