I don't agree with this view. Copyright has always been about being able to copy, not about controlling what happens with the copy. It is a very radical departure to grant control of how copies are used to the copyright holder. If I want control then I need a separate and distinct contract and the terms must be spelled out in advance.
Ie, if I sell you a piece of software, then you can use it in ways that I do not approve of (stick it in a smart bomb). Of course software usually does come with restrictions but these come as separate side agreements (EULAs, or actual contracts).
In particular once the copy is out of my hands I can not change my mind. If I sell a million copies of my song on a record then I have no legal ability to recall those records if I later find out it has become a popular with white supremacists. The record once sold is out of my control. I am also unable to prevent owners of the record from playing it to a small group of family or friends. This is why companies want DRM, so that they can change the terms of licenses after the fact, or bypass fair use clauses, and in general maintain a level of control that copyright does not grant.