I'm guessing RIAA's lobbyists are more powerful than an EFF lobbyist. By powerful, I mean have deeper pockets.

Now that musicians make proportionally more from live shows (the recorded music is just the advertisement for the the show), the idea that anti-piracy is for the artists themselves is even more preposterous.

UBI + no anti-piracy would clearly be a huge improvement for the vast majority of artists and art itself. Let's just do that.

Don't lobby. go to your local caucus and change it from within. Note that I said Caucus: even in a primary state there is some form of caucus where the party decides things. You want to be in this system, this is where the party platform is decided on. This is where the people who are working behind the scene to elect someone make the plans. In turn this is where politicians go to find people who will work for them. Which in turn means this is where you can have a one-on-one meeting from the standpoint of someone important to listen to. (when you spend a few Saturdays knocking on potential voters doors for someone that someone listens to you)

If both parties get anti-DRM legislation into the platform in random places you can be assured they will listen. If both parties see their big supporters as against something they will listen. Politicians do not want money, contrary to what you might think: they want a power, and in this country that means they need votes. Money (for ads) is one way to get votes, but real humans doing real work is at least as powerful.

Nipping in the bud is preventing a problem from getting worse.

Cutting the head off the snake is about removing the point of control from an organisation.

I feel like the problem is already fully-realised in this case, so you can't "nip it at the bud" but have to stop the full-form yes? That goes along with "cutting it off at the head" moreso in my opinion.

"cut he/she/it/them off at the pass"

I know you are dead serious and I agree, but this made me laugh at how such an obvious answer can be so absurd to the company itself since it's their window to the world of users. You and I would say that is their leverage in the fight of abusive DRM, yet they would argue it is what allows them to survive.

Given that Google is the author of the main browser-based content decryption module in use (Widevine), and Google also has a bunch of content provider partnerships to maintain, and they run YouTube, which in some ways relies on content owners not getting pissed off and suing it out of existence (content owners are the reason YT has ContentID, not because of any legal requirement)... I don't think it's in Google's best financial interest to fight against DRM. So they won't do that.