Ah, the tried and true slippery slope argument. Still as invalid as ever.
Is it still a "slippery slope" if it already happened?
I live in Canada. We recently got the Copyright Modernization Act (formerly known as Bill C-11), courtesy of Steven Harper.
This sweet little piece of legislation contains an interesting provision: it makes it is illegal to circumvent DRM for any purpose whatsoever. In effect, the presence of DRM trumps any and all "fair dealing" rights (somewhat similar to the American concept of "fair use") that we otherwise have. Even if no copyright infringement has taken place.
It is totally worth fighting laws that would force DRM on the entire market. This AC (same one who started this thread) never said not to fight that aspect of it.
While the above is technically not "force[ing] DRM on the entire market", it is close enough for practical purposes.
You and others like you are perfectly free to offer a DRM free alternative in the absence of (A).
Again see above. Suppose a young contemporary artist (say, composer) creates an unsurpassed masterpiece. The work is offered in a DRMed format only. Several generations later, the copyright expired and you want to distribute the work. Unfortunately, it was never offered in an unencumbered format, breaking DRM is illegal and the company that has the key either doen't have any incentive to share it with you or no longer exists.
If there really is a market for something, that market will be served. It's a fundamental axiom of capitalism. BUT:
Be prepared to pay significantly more for your DRM free products
Be prepared for significantly lower availability of the latest, most premium or in-demand products.
Be prepared for the 90% of people who just want to pay a buck for the latest stupid Angry Birds derivative to laugh in your face or just ignore your ramblings.
So what you're saying is that it is practically guaranteed that there will be no market for it.
Regarding being an AC: I've been commenting/reading slashdot since the beginning (more than a decade). I have yet to find it useful to create an account here.
Imagine holding an IM, email or forum conversation with a person. There are arguments, examples, points, counterpoints, exchange of opinions, presentation of facts, sometimes (hopefully) re-evaluation of positions...
Now imagine that every reply that you receive may be made by a different person who may, but most likely may not, share the same point of view as one of the previous participants. Moreover, this person may self-identify as the one you were previously conversing with, but you have no way of knowing for sure.
In short, if holding a meaningful conversation with me, or with others like me, is of no value to you, by all means remain an AC.
Otherwise, you are making it harder and less convenient for us to converse with you.