If they cared about us, inclusion of DRM into any product would exempt it from qualification for copyright protection.
Basically, you should be allowed to have copyright, or DRM, but never both. And you can't change your mind on it either... if the hardware is released with DRM, you don't get to release a non-DRM version because you realized you fucked up. If it's extant anywhere in the world, copyright's forever out of reach.
The copyright deal is, we the people will give you exclusive rights for a limited time, in return the work will then enter the public domain for all to use.
If at the start of the deal you ensure your work cannot fulfill the requirements of that deal, eg use DRM, then you do not enter into that deal as you have already refused it by not fulfilling your end.
In your analogy, you're putting locks on a house, but you were only allowed to rent the house under the agreement that you wouldn't leave it locked up. and you didn't leave a key with anyone or do anything to make sure the house was unlockable. In fact the locks are booby traps that will destroy the house when your rental period is up, robbing those who would otherwise occupy the house of every having that opportunity ... yes, it's a protracted analogy because it sucks and these are different concepts.
All "copyrighted" works belong to the public domain.
We're only giving them a time-limited lease to the stuff. If you leased land to someone for 75 years, and at the end of the lease term they started burying highly radioactive waste on the property to prevent you from taking it back for the next 330,000 years...
Well, you'd just refuse to lease it to people like that, wouldn't you?
We should demand that our government refuse to give those leases out if they do it. DRM or copyright, not both. DRM prevents the work from ever going back to the public domain.
Your arguments are ill-considered, in fact, you don't even prevent one. Just knee-jerk reactionary "nyuh uh!".
Trademarks and to a lesser extent copyrights are contingent on the rights holders defending their properties and rights. Courts have invalidated trademarks and copyrights due to insufficient defensive actions from their rights holders. DRM is just one of many methods that a rights holder can defend their properties and rights with.
This isn't to say DRM is acceptable; most examples aren't. But it is legally incompatible to argue that a rights holder can have trademarks/copyrights but should not defend them.
This may be true of trademarks, but I've never heard of any requirement to defend copyrights, nor have I heard of any courts invalidating copyrights because of a lack of defending them.
In the interests of treaty harmonization, courts have even gone so far as to reinstate expired copyrights.
They've stolen from the public domain, and given those works back to corporations who didn't even have anything to do with creating them in the first place.
Basically, you should be allowed to have copyright, or DRM, but never both. And you can't change your mind on it either... if the hardware is released with DRM, you don't get to release a non-DRM version because you realized you fucked up. If it's extant anywhere in the world, copyright's forever out of reach.