> by its mere definition it's always aimed against the user, therefore it's always an anti-feature.
Describing it as "anti user" is theoretically correct but practically incorrect. It's true that it might prevent mods and possible future uses if the servers go down, but in practice, users don't care, as is demonstrated by the fact that games that contain Denuvo routinely sell in the millions and users have no idea it's even there, and they will never know.
Overreaching?
I don't know. Companies put out a product, you're free not to buy it if you don't like it. That's one of the reasons why I call this natural market forces.
> So conceptually it's not any better than what fourth amendment is aimed to prevent.
That's a gross exaggeration. The Fourth amendment is about unreasonable searches by the government, I completely fail to see how willingly buying a digital product from non governmental organizations is connected to Fourth amendment in any rational way.
Again, at the end of the day, nobody forces you to buy that product, hence "natural market forces".
The fact that millions of these games are being bought every month tells me users don't feel that whatever flaws, perceived or real, Denuvo has matters less to them than playing these games.