The absurdity of ad absurdum

Do I even need to tell you how absurd this rant on DRM versus Security is? No. But I'm going to anyway. Or at least, I want to address the "issues" Mr. Yodaiken raises as I think it's an interesting intellectual exercise.

1. This issue is the "analog hole" issue. Except it's not. You always lose some amount of fidelity when you convert to or from analog and digital. But plugging the audio out from your computer back into the audio in and recording a piece of DRM'd music still sounds decent, and that scares the RIAA and the MPAA. They'd prefer it if everything but the speakers dealt in digital, because then everything could be mandated to carry DRM protections. But that's a damn far cry from having a security camera shut off when it recognizes a copy-protected image. That's quite simply a ridiculous extreme that wouldn't serve as a means to perpetrate mass-infringement, and therefore wouldn't have such idiotic protections on it, and it's paranoid to think anyone would ever propose such a thing.
2. This is a minor software problem. One answer is simply that in a world of media appliances, the frequency with which you will be replacing individual hardware components will be very low. When's the last time you replaced a video card in your Tivo?
3. You always have to determine where the DRM boundary is, and where it will be placed will be dictated by common sense. You don't care about DRM on a blood test machine...you care about DRM on a patient's medical records. Will any idiot set up a system where a DRM-sensitive database refuses to accept non-DRM'd blood data? No. That's retarded. You'll have a system where the blood data will be inserted into a patient's medical records, _then_ protected with digital rights.
4. This is an age-old legal issue that really has nothing to do with DRM. These are the same sorts of issues that arise when you have legal wrangling over a paper copy of something, or in fact any object that cannot be easily duplicated. All DRM does is turn something that is easily copied or transferred into something that is not.
5. What?? Is using a media player in a manufacturing system a big concern for people?
6. This is another stupid objection. You don't install random pieces of software on systems that have hard real-time demands. You don't do that now, let alone in a DRM world. What hospital allows people to install file-sharing software on heart monitors, for fuck's sake?! If a system that had hard real-time demands needed DRM for some reason, it would be built in from the get go and designed not to interfere with the scheduling.
7. Seriously, what world is this guy living in? Software for home entertainment or offices is vastly different from software that controls planes and ICUs, and the latter has vastly more stringent demands on creation and maintenance actions. You don't have some jerkoff installing "something cool" he found on the web on an ICU computer.
8. I refuse to address this point as it's a) too much like previous points, and b) too stupid.
9. Viruses are pieces of software that subvert the intended functions of the piece of software they are infecting, therefore the effects of a virus are inherently unstable and unpredictable. What does this have to do with DRM?
10. Remote verification of license integrity is a separate issue from DRM (or, in other words, nothing says that a DRM scheme involves outside checks). Ergo, again, this has nothing to do with DRM.
11. Hooks to be used by viruses is more an issue of OS security than it is DRM.

You know, on retrospect, that exercise felt like an utter waste of time. I really want to debate someone who has more intelligent points to make.