Sorry, but that's not how laws work.
Let's stay with your example of the "evil program".
Have you ever heard of the old adage: "ignorance is no excuse"?

Let's (wrongly?) assume, that such a program would remove the copy protection without your knowledge (= without you clicking some boxes, choosing some options, etc.)...the fact that you simply don't know what the program does, wouldn't magically make your copy a legal copy.

The removal of the copy protection makes the copy automatically illegal - your knowledge (or your alleged lack of knowledge) about that removal, would simply make the difference between an intentially and an "unintentionally" created illegal copy.
And if it ever came to a trial, you probably would have to prove that you really weren't aware of what the program does.

But illegal stays illegal - the second case ("I wasn't aware of that...!") is simply where that old adage comes into play: "ignorance is no excuse (in front of a judge!)"

Of course - the probability for you ever to get held legally responsible for that illegal copy, is near zero (for as long as you don't "go public" with it).

Because that's where another old adage gets relevant: "Where there's no plaintiff, there's no judge!"

So - make your illegal copy - but keep it for yourself only.
And don't keep it after you sell the original.

Because that's also part of the law (and the part that most people are all too willing to "forget" about) - you are not allowed to keep copies of your games/movies/CDs, etc., if you ever sell the original...oh, and btw: that also counts for truly legal copies.

That's wrong. And many courts have deliberated the opposite of what you write (about music and movies).
Ignorance is not an excuse for committing a crime. But it is the responsibility of those who use the drm to ensure that it is not removed by mistake by the buyer.
It is not the buyer's responsibility to know what the drm is and to know that the program he is using for copying is removing the drm.
Copying for private use is a consumer right as long as it is possible, a weak drm (any drm) were the buyers remove it without knowing it was there (with the intention of removing it) is not a reason to make your copy illegal. I have never said anything different for this second point. Any private copy should be private and should be deleted if you sell the original (not possible with digital media anyway).
That's true even if the media is drm-free.

Any links?

No, sorry I read this information a few years ago I absolutely don't remember where (I don't keep a list of links to provide).
You can believe me on the word or search for information on your own on google. Also I had read about Italian cases, I don't know if the same is true in other countries. In any case the sources would be in Italian.
I will try to do a short research but I don't promise anything. After all, I'm not writing a newspaper article so it's not my responsibility to quote sources.

Anyway, the law also says: "innocent until proven otherwise", so it is the responsibility of those who accuse to prove that the intention to remove the drm was deliberate.

https://books.google.it/books?id=sIqWDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT111&lpg=PT111&dq=private+copy+drm+remove+without+knowing+it&source=bl&ots=bmq6J53z_G&sig=ACfU3U3j9ODbzBoQZw2_PGidxR3CvmYDeQ&hl=it&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj13N6k9MLpAhXGAewKHSJzBXIQ6AEwCXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=private%20copy%20drm%20remove%20without%20knowing%20it&f=false

Some informations about this.
Every state got a different law, in Poland, for example, a consumer can remove the drm.
Like always I found many different contradictory conclusions because the law is never completely clear like this one:
https://gizmodo.com/its-perfectly-legal-to-tell-people-how-to-remove-drm-1670223538
I can't waste any more time with this research, I hope it's enough for you.

So, we're back to square one: in my country, it's illegal - and if it comes to a court trial, the excuse "I removed the copy protection "by accident"" is not valid.

Well you can say that you made a copy in poland XD

Not sure why this would be news since it's been true of every Rockstar game for years on Steam and other clients. Also every Ubisoft game, and now every EA game since they went back to Steam. Bethesda games require you to have a Bethesda account to use DLC, but I think the core games still work without it.

Laws are not the same everywhere.


Also, You can use the Goldberg Social Club Emu on the Steam and Epic versions and you don't have to worry about the Steam/Rockstar/Epic DRM.

It also works for Max Payne 3 and GTA IV

that does not remove denuvo/denuvo-like drm or any other drm

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux_gaming/comments/bcx6in/goldberg_steam_emu_is_now_open_source/

What Denuvo? Read my post I am not talking about the Steam emulator.

I quote
"You can use the Goldberg Social Club Emu on the Steam and Epic versions and you don't have to worry about the Steam/Rockstar/Epic DRM."

that's not true Goldberg Social Club Emu do not remove any of those drm

The real question is why go through all this DRM bs...if you really want to play the game, just get it on console. Granted that doesn't solve the problem and consoles are closed platforms but at least it doesn't feel (to me) like extra junk is infecting the machine.

Oh no!