You can embed a private key in the TPM module of a DRM hardware player with signed boot and it will work reasonably well. This is the PS3's approach and, had they actually salted their keys, it would have remained effective.
Business-wise, DRM doesn't have to be perfect, it just needs to keep honest people honest. The fact that the lock on the door to my apartment can be broken in, or picked, doesn't make the lock itself a bad idea.
No, it's a wrong comparison. DRM is not only stupid, it's unethical. Comparing it to a lock on your apartment is not proper, since it totally reverses the idea. DRM is more comparable to placing a police robot in your house, in order to "prevent potential law violations". I.e. completely the opposite - privacy breaching, unethical preemptive policing.
The TPM (Trusted Platform Module) is an oxymoron. Trust is relation between two sides (users and distributors). It implies mutuality. The whole DRM concept is built on the opposite - i.e. not trusting the user, on treating users as potential criminals by default. Since users aren't trusted, there is no reason for users to trust DRM schemes, which should be treated as spyware and privacy intruding methods of control.
HN would really benefit from some sort of 'supervote' mechanism, that could be used once per thread or something. Because it takes effort to elaborate and tie truths together in a succinct way, effort that unfortunately has to be wasted on every half-assed outrage thread, with the resulting comments such as this one ending up on the same footing as the standard "no yu" and "it is what it is" ones.
Certain medicines which are prone to abuse have mechanisms in each pill that make it difficult to be cut up and snorted. Dynamite has chemical tracers added to it to make its use easier to trace. Photocopiers cannot duplicate currency. In all these cases products have been made more tamper proof so as to resist abuse. How is DRM different, here?
I consider photocopying control idiotic. Other use cases that you mentioned seem to deal with poisons, weapons and etc. You surely see a difference with that, or you don't? The whole issue with DRM is the level of control. Preventing crime is good. Making a totalitarian police state is not. DRM leans towards the second (invasive control which is way beyond what is ethical).
That may work for games and software where you have to copy complicated logic. However in the case of movies, music and books you can always record in some way. Once you have one DRM free recording it can be distributed and watched by anyone.
The only way to get around this would be to mandate people bought devices that refused to play DRM-free content.
The problem with the lock picking analogy is that being caught is significantly more likely and carries a heavier penalty.
Imagine the invention of a universal lockpick that was so easy that a child with 5 minutes of training could use it and readily available for free. As well as some form of cheap stealth technology that made it easy to sneak around people's houses undetected. You would expect burglary rates to go through the roof and a similar argument could be made that investing in a lock for your house is a waste of time.
Very, very simply, here is the premise behind DRM.
1. I know a secret 2. I want to tell you the secret 3. I don't want you to tell anyone else the secret 4. I don't trust you
Perhaps now you can see why some people consider DRM a stupid idea.