Right, people read this very carefully:
Yes, DRM (actual working one!) is not about stopping piracy. Claiming so is going to mark you as insane no matter you you're pro or against DRM. The statement "DRM is trying to stop piracy" is insane and one has to be insane to claim it. It is trying to reduce piracy. And it's reducing it by making it a non-zero effort.
Of course, copy protection is going to be breached. What do you people think it happens? Somebody stares at a screen at slams his first on the keyboard until a copy protection emerges? And that somebody is obviously mentally challenged because he is incapable of grasping the pattern his last ten thousand failed attempts hint at? No, there are actual people, who, take my word for it, understand what they are doing and are capable of thought, learning and reasoning. And these people, believe it or not, do not imagine themselves single handedly vanquishing all the pirates.
Why do people claim "DRM is trying to stop piracy"? And then why do they go "but if doesn't stop it, it's useless"? That's a perfect example of the Nirvana fallacy "Oh if it doesn't work 100%, then obviously it doesn't work!" You can see the error here (if you don't, don't bother to come back).
So with this in mind, look at the lock comparison again. Several people said it's the wrong comparison. However, none of them actually claimed that the locks are needed. Because the comparison wasn't trying to be a perfect portrayal of how DRM works, it is to illustrate the principle method behind it, namely, if the security mechanism can be bypassed, why bother having it? So instead of trying to claim "No, but it's like you open ALLL the locks" and other nonsense, explain to me what is the point to have a mechanism that wouldn't stop people from wandering in your house. And somebody said the lock isn't an inconvenience to normal user - so you have never lost/forgot your keys? Maybe you haven't (I haven't in quite a while - 15 years or so), however it is an extra effort to keep track of your keys and otherwise ensure that you are able to go in. That is more inconvenient than not having to do it, no?
And finally, I am absolutely astonished at the number of people who apparently don't understand piracy or DRM. When they claim that piracy is not bad. Oh, and lucky for me, somebody mentioned Stardock. Well, I confess, I don't know much about them aside that they made Demigod. And I don't even know much about this game aside from these things: it is a DotA clone of some sort. At launch time, they expected 50k people at peak times (so, not always, and they expected those to come in a few weeks or a month), so they stress tested the service for 50k people and it was fine. At launch time, they got 120 000 connections. Imagine that. Out of these, around 18k were legitimate [http://forums.stardock.com/346815]. Read this again: there were five times as much pirates as normal people, who hopped on to give the game a spin. 100k pirates - that's twice the amount of the peak users expected, isn't it? Yes, it is and it crashed their servers! Affecting normal paying customers as well. Oh no, piracy caused no harm, didn't it. OF COURSE IT DID! There were 18k people who didn't play and the pirates went back with the expectations that the game was buggy (server crashed, they were booted out, etc), so a number of them decided not to buy the game, they might have otherwise paid for.
There, piracy is an issue. Oh, it's just one example, is it? The Witcher 2 sold a million copies while an estimated 4.5 million were illegally downloaded. That's the CD Projekt people so praise and swear by when it comes to no DRM. Thy made a good game, people liked, it didn't have any DRM (eventually) and it was made by a small and friendly studio. The formula for success yielded 80% piracy rate. And they hated it [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-11-29-the-witcher-2-pirated-4-5-million-times-reckons-cd-projekt]. Want more? The friggin Linux Game Publishing added copy protection to their games. Linux - the word associated with the opposite of copy protection. They didn't have it at first, but were forced to, because of the high number of piracy. And they fucking hated that, too - adding the DRM, I mean (also, the piracy). They also suffered from an estimated 80% piracy rate (One in 5-6 copies was legit [http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=lgp_copy_protection&num=1]).
Sure, it doesn't concern you doesn't it - just some nobodies twirling their moustache and fantasising about fucking their customers in the ass with DRM. Oh wait, actually they just don't want to be broke. Of course, they are still getting money from their legitimate sales and million copies should still give the devs some money. But let's say, just a hypothetical scenario, that you had a game that sold reasonably well, didn't inconvenience your paying customers with DRM, also pirates don't inconvenience the same customers (Demigod style). That's a reasonable situation, isn't it - never mind the "lost sales" bullshit (it is quite bullshit anyway) there is money for the developer, the customers are happy (DRM-wise and the game is decent at least). Piracy doesn't hamper this in any way...except, again, I'm continuing the thought experiment, let's say that a pirate has issue with his cracked copy and asks for support from the devs. And the devs oblige. And then another pirate decides they need support. And another one. And the devs still oblige - they are now actively losing money, as these people did not pay a dime but tech support still costs resources to the devs, also it takes away resources to help legitimate customers. Oh, shit, did I say that's fictional? That was one hell of a typo, I meant what happens with games all the time. For example, Fallout 3. Pete Hines of Bethesda has gone and said "The amount of money we spend supporting people who didn't pay us for the game in the first place?it's f--ing ludicrous [http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/10/13/bethesda-deals-with-pirates/]" (I can only assume that he didn't actually say "f--ing" - it's probably a typo, how do you pronounce it - "ef dash dash ing"?).
Oh fuck, it seems like piracy has some drawbacks. But still, why bother stop it, it's not really hurting the industry that much...except it makes developers want to develop for consoles because the drastically lower piracy there. The PC gaming is slowly winking out of existence because of it. Sure people complain we're getting shitty console ports but we're getting them partly because there is so little money in developing for a PC. You make a game for a console, it sells well and then you make a shitty console port - doesn't cost you much, you're getting your money's worth out of it (the sales would cover the port and distribution) and you don't get bothered about the game being pirated because you're not suffering heavy losses from that (unlike if you actually take time and effort to make the PC version more of a PC version).
There - that's what happens when somebody says "Pirates would win anyway".
Oh, and to the person who decides to say anything in the line of "consoles are better" or "PC sucks anyway" (I know there would be at least one. Whether they actually type it or not), I want to tell you something, buddy: FUCK! YOU! I have a PC, OK? And I'm happy with it. Also, I simply can't afford a console.
Now back to what I was speaking about - if people claim piracy isn't a huge issue, they are OK with all of this. There is more. If you're intelligent enough you can find out more or ever work it out, I don't feel the need to type everything here. "Piracy doesn't cause issues" is either ignorance, or being totally OK with issues. The latter of which means that you're lying as you understand there are issues in the first place.
EDIT: Damn, forgot to add a disclaimer and I know people would immediately misunderstand me. So here it goes: read my first comment. There that's my stance on DRM. I am not saying I want Ubisoft to slowly rape me with theirs (although, I haven't actually had a huge problem so far, that doesn't mean I think it's made of fluffy bunnies and rainbows), I'm saying that it has to be right. DRM has proven time and time again to not be the spawn of Satan. Only you don't know it's there. And that distinguishes good DRM from bad.