And the solution is that we default the behavior of PDF readers to disallow cut-n-paste if the copyright holder says we can't?
I fail to see how that makes these rights holders particularly happy. And Jon's example in the screenshot was the ALI document that he wrote about a week or two ago. Pretty obvious fair use in my opinion.
The rights holders who think they should be able to control every last use of their so-called property won't be happy until they have fully locked-down systems anyway. Pushing back is the only way the public (who, after all, grants the copy 'right') can show that there are perfectly legitimate uses that the rights holders are trying to prevent.