That's a good argument, thank you! I'd argue that for DRM to work reasonably well (without coercion), it doesn't need to be perfect, it can work in the same way password stretching works: you don't get the absolute protection, but influence the cost (value). For example, when applied to software, DRM can be stripped, but then you'll be receiving the executable from a possibly untrusted source. However you are spot on that currently DRM is mostly legal and political, but I don't think that's the inherent property of it.
* * *
Unfortunately, seeing my comments downvoted makes me uncomfortable to continue discussion here on HN, as (when applied to reasonable comments) it provides instant feedback that you're going against the popular opinion, and I'd rather avoid such feedback, so I'll go think about it more and then write a blog post or something.
DRM doesn't work nearly as well as password stretching. I can sit down for a few hours with IDA and crack nearly any DRM scheme.
With password stretching, the result of how long attacks will take is predictable and they can actually be made difficult or require more hardware (and at larger expense) rather than simply requiring a more skilled attacker.
It's not a good argument. DRM is an executable contract. Contracts cannot enforce themselves. That is why we have police, courts, etc. The fact that it is an executable contract makes it more difficult to circumvent than a paper one, but circumvention is still circumvention.
* * *
Unfortunately, seeing my comments downvoted makes me uncomfortable to continue discussion here on HN, as (when applied to reasonable comments) it provides instant feedback that you're going against the popular opinion, and I'd rather avoid such feedback, so I'll go think about it more and then write a blog post or something.