After watching the DRM debate rage on, I’m left wondering if there is a good cop/ bad cop game being played by DRM and DMCA critics. For discussion purposes, not simply to draw a strawman although I can point out citations, the discourse goes (roughly):

Good cop- "ah, come on, copyright holders don’t need DRM and the DMCA. Didn't you listen to Apple's PR department? Without DRM and the DMCA, you can still fight piracy and unauthorized use of copyrighed works through the pre-1998 Copyright Act. Because DRM and the DMCA do not stop piracy and unauthorized use, it is cost beneficial for you to figure this into your business model. Go with the flow, let consumers have what they want, you’ll still be fine."

Bad cop- "how dare copyright holders try to deter piracy and unauthorized use of copyrighted works; I, Time Magazine’s Person of the Year, am part of a revolution. Copyright holders benefit from me infringing their copyrights. Plus, illegal activity must also be immoral and unethical, because, I am important. I showed you that piracy cannot be stopped. Musicians can always make money selling T-shirts or giving music lessons- all activity is “economic”- so you should just let me enjoy entertainment."

What should copyright holders, and their representatives, do? I believe they're doing whats best; relying on themselves to look after their interests.