> None? None. So we have no common ground.
Is that how you conduct discussions with people from outside your field(s)? You might be more successful if you are willing to find common ground outside your immediate field of expertise. Also, I told you I was willing to reconsider if you were to show how my personal experience in that area is relevant to the discussion.
> I've done more than my fair share of explication
No, actually, you haven't. I don't know whether you maybe have elsewhere in this thread, but in your responses to me you did indeed not explain your position particularly much. You have to some degree in your medium article, and I was willing to build on that.
> and noticed some kind of gap that neither you nor I are willing to bridge for whatever reasons.
Really, it seems to me that it's only you who isn't willing to entertain just for the sake of understanding the arguments of the other side the idea that maybe they indeed have thought this all through, that they are aware of your arguments, and that they have reasons to reject them after all.
I would be more than happy to be shown that DRM and the criminalization of DRM bypassing is indeed not a big problem, as that could solve a lot of problems with ensuring fair compensation for creative works, which is a big problem that the digitalization of the world has brought. Unfortunately, I can't really recognize any effort on your part to bring forward any arguments to that effect. Instead, it seems to me that you are utterly unwilling to reconsider your own position, and as a result don't even understand what you are arguing against, which only compounds the ineffectiveness of your arguments.
If you want to make yourself understood, you have to be willing to seriously question your own position, and you have to assume that the other party is not trying to sabotage the conversation if there is any chance to do so. And you have to try and avoid sabotaging it at all cost yourself.