The lock analogy isn't perfect, but it's qualitatively correct. The assertion is that locks that are easily defeated necessarily have no legitimate purpose.
DRM, like my front door lock, serves the purpose of deterring casual theft, not of eliminating all possibility of theft.
There are better ways to do that than DRM, and DRM is more of a pain and risk to legitimate owners than door locks are. But the over-zealousness of anti-DRM crusaders leads them to extend their arguments to ridiculous extremes. That's what bothers me: if DRM does more harm than good (as I believe), why use laughably false and disingenuous arguments to make the case?
DRM, like my front door lock, serves the purpose of deterring casual theft, not of eliminating all possibility of theft.
There are better ways to do that than DRM, and DRM is more of a pain and risk to legitimate owners than door locks are. But the over-zealousness of anti-DRM crusaders leads them to extend their arguments to ridiculous extremes. That's what bothers me: if DRM does more harm than good (as I believe), why use laughably false and disingenuous arguments to make the case?