maybe this whole business model thing is about domination - if megacorporation is not in a dominating position then there is no business model to think about, so there is nothing serious to begin with;

i mean that a position of dominance is a prerequisite for a business relationship - one where the owner of the business can turn the mutual relationship into money.

However this is only speculation, since i don't know enough on the subject of money making.

Except what is good for one business can be quite bad for another. And DRM in general is bad overall for business and economy (same as lock-in, growing monopoly and etc.). So this mantra doesn't sound meaningful.

There is a major difference between a self publishing artist and a record label; the artist is primarily interested in gaining a wider audience and DRM is a hindrance here; the artist wants to increase his reach, he is less bothered by piracy.

The record label however is very worried about piracy - i argue that your position on the subject depends on your initial position in the hierarchy of things.

Not really. DRM reduces sales and end user reach. It reduces quality of what they offer. Unless you define as "good" those reasons they really use DRM for. And for sure none of them are good in general.

> they don't mind that it kills opportunities for growth in the future

Then it's even more pointless for anyone to think in this context that "what's good for business is good for America".

I'd rephrase it. To certain legacy business which can't compete and instead wants to use various combination of corrupted laws and lock-in to preserve their control over the market. There as well can be big business which is hurt by TPP and the like.