in the DMCA case, you cease their profit-making pipelines, so that when you go for the actual problem, the defenders have less reason to defend (and thus, less incentive to throw more money into the defense). Theres a big difference in defending something that brings in 100k/yr, versus something that’s been DMCA’d everywhere relevant, and can’t be sold (is there any reason left to continue defending, unless you expect to win & get sales rights back?)

For any weaker party, targetting the problem itself is too expensive to start with, especially if the defendant is the only one currently making money off the product (the accuser only has external funds to work with, no matter how valuable the product is/was, while the defender has both product value and external funds; DMCA can remove one of those revenue streams)

> Don't ask me what the DMCA is in that metaphor :P

If you are basing your argument on a metaphor but can't explain the metaphor then maybe it's time to step back and reevaluate your argument. "Target it directly" is Hollywood advice, it's insane to use that as your only legal strategy.