Given that you don't seem to see this sort of rhetorical pattern throughout, you just find fault with one specific sentence No, when I said I would "focus on a

Given that you don't seem to see this sort of rhetorical pattern throughout, you just find fault with one specific sentence No, when I said I would "focus on a specific example", I didn't mean to imply this was the only example. I was hoping to focus on just one at a time for clarity. It's a relatively short list, but there are others, mostly in the same section "DRM has nothing to do with copyright". The next down the list for bothering me would be "It's not a copyright infringement to record a Netflix movie to watch later." While another fine example of something that arguably should not be copyright infringement, legally this is uncharted territory. There's a great summary of the issue here: https://www.tomsguide.com/us/legal-playlater-record-netflix,news-20797.html https://www.tomsguide.com/us/legal-playlater-record-netflix,.... I think the implied part of the sentence you're tearing apart is: "it's obviously not copyright infringement (in terms of what that actually means as both a general and legal concept and yet our screwed up legal system has allowed people to make a legal argument to that effect!)" Yes, I think that's a fair summary. It's certainly easier to make the argument "DRM has nothing to copyright" if you are able to start with the premise that "Copyright infringement has nothing to do with copyright". But I'd rather see that premise made explicit, since concealing it leaves me worried about what other legally dubious but rhetorically useful premises are hidden elsewhere. (Thanks for your patience in discussing this. I'll drop out now.)