The current leaks specify that selling, buying, owning, using, inventing, planning, modifying, etc of devices, software, or methods that can be used or could be helpful for removal or circumvention of DRM have to be treated as a a crime.
When you are a 60-70 year old media executive (or a shady cabal of dozens of them, each reinforcing their own viewpoints—sound familiar?) and your life has been money and success and everybody bowing down to you, why wouldn't you fight to keep it? They aren't in a business of generosity, they are in a business of taking your money.
Why are software engineers able to make money without constantly flying from conference to conference away from their families?
Entrenched incumbents rarely can. And, economically speaking, if they reckon they'll be able to extract more longevity/revenue/advantage this way (lobbying to manipulate the playing-field in their favour, as opposed to coming up with innovations that would enable the business to adapt and thrive) -- then I guess that's the "rational" thing to do :)
Think about it. Disney got started with works from the Brothers Grimm. Copyright terms were short then. Once Disney became an empire, they very quickly realized somebody else could compete with them. So they worked to extend copyright, and it's pretty much going to continue that way, keeping Mickey just out of the Public Domain.
Disney knows another Disney is bad for business, unless they own that Disney.
And there is where the control comes into play.
The people with empires today realize they can become extinct tomorrow. All it takes is a little competition and the barrier for entry has never been lower. People can put things out there and get a lot of attention and distribute for almost nothing compared to what it took to build the empires we see today.
If they get this, then they won't have to deal with competetors. It's going to be hard to do anything really, because the criminal risks associated with doing things with open tools and data will turn people toward, "safe" and "approved" means and methods. Those will just happen to align with approved distribution, meaning they get a cut, and or ownership ideally.
Given this perspective, reality is what they say it is. Has nothing at all to do with the tech and it's impact on the business model.
They can't enforce that with music, it's beyond their control. To be able to control that they'd need to be able to restrict access to electronics components, restrict access to electronics education, confiscate all existing audio recording equipment, restrict access to purchase audio recording equipment (including equipment for musicians and the TV/film industry). Furthermore, once the music is DRM free, you'd need to be able to monitor the sharing of citizens around the world, not just through the Internet and private computer networks but through Sneakernets as well (an example of an effective sneakernet: http://www.fastcompany.com/3048163/in-cuba-an-underground-ne... ).
So with all this in mind, what's the point? Those who want DRM-free music are going to be able to get it and hide it from the authorities, and it'll have minimum to no effect on the industries it was designed to protect, and possibly backfire if enough people choose to resist the restrictions.
TPP is as much a political agenda as it is a trade agreement. The US wants their "standards" around the globe, so they can get you anytime, anywhere without you having any chance of defending yourself. You cannot build a global surveillance state if there are still people around which can potentially undermine you by use of technology, so you need to get rid of them in a "nice and clean" way, and charging some cryptographers for illegal music will produce much less public outcry as if you were to put them into prison for doing their everyday work.
How sad it may sound, Cameron could learn a lot from these folks :/