I can answer that from direct experience: It is much better and more effective to design a product in such a way that theft is difficult or economically inefficient to steal, or that it contains a service element that cannot be stolen, than it is to try to get passed and enforced draconian laws that create an incentive for intrusive enforcement, that go against longstanding doctrine, and that generally rub people the wrong way.
As a disinterested party in this case, I have to ask: What causes more harm? Intellectual property theft or bad laws? If the answer is bad laws, I'd rather see the theft continue than give up my rights and the rights of other law-abiding people so that intrusive enforcement can be used to stop theft.
DirecTV could use less lame encryption techniques rather than force us all to bend over for the anal probe.