I am tired of being misunderstood, so this is my last word on the subject as well.I know just as well as you that every DRM system yet devised is easily breakable. I do not dispute that. I have never disputed that. Frankly, I don't even care about that, and my argument is that it does not even matter.The statement that a publisher makes when they place DRM on a copyrighted work is not "you can't break this". Everybody knows better than that.The statement that a publisher makes is "break this, and we will hunt you down, sue you for every penny you're worth, and put you in prison." This is because the act of breaking DRM for the purpose of piracy is illegal in and of itself, no matter how easy it is to carry out. That is why I say the ease of breaking DRM does not matter.A more concrete example might be useful.If I leave my door unlocked or even wide open, you may take that as a sign that I do not object to your entering my home. If you do so, you have committed no crime. (But if you take something from me, you have committed theft.)If I put a lock on my door and give you a key, it is the same to you as if I left my door unlocked.But if I put a lock on my door, even if it is a flimsy lock that anybody with a bolt cutter could cut right through, and you cut my lock and enter my home, you have already committed burglary. Even if you take nothing from me, you have already committed a crime, and you may be caught and punished.It is the same way with DRM as it is with locks. A publisher who releases a work unprotected into a field where piracy is rampant is as reckless as a householder who leaves his home unlocked in a neighborhood where theft is rampant. But if he takes at least some minimal steps to safeguard his property, such as imposing DRM or locking his door, both he and the police have more useful recourse against the pirate or the burglar.