my point is that there is no *market* outcome independent of the government.
Your point is a tautology under any system other than anarchy. The facile observation that we are not under anarchy does not make inadvisable any position that can be characterized as "laissez faire".
the DCMA is the law; it is government; it is also part of the "market." the mistake of assuming that the market is independent of government is one that was resolved 90 years ago.
Markets can be more or less independent of government, and your strawman assumption is one to which I decline to subscribe.
You don't actually know what my argument is. Yet you write as if you did.
I write as if your conclusion is an accurate statement of your position. Some positions can be recognized as mistaken without having read every possible mistaken argument for them.
here's the thing: you've got a lot of righteousness raging through out this. I wonder on what basis.
I don't agree that diagnosing misapplied analogies and linguistic imprecision necessarily constitutes "raging righteousness".
Is this common with people in your field? Or only people with your persuasion?
Is smuggling assumptions into questions common with people in your field?  Or only with people who don't have answers to their interlocutor's arguments? :-)