Why wouldn't they? The people using it that way have probably been hearing that we are "at war" on something since they were children: the "War on Poverty," the "War on (some) Drugs," the "War on Terror."

"In hindsight we might have picked a simpler language than PL/I, . . ." Now there's an understatement!

Don't. Trust that if you offer a fair product at a reasonable price, then the consumers will buy it rather than copy it. It's the same model that worked with Non-copy protected cassettes back in the 80s and 90s.

But, but, but HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC!

The consumer (nay, customer, or better yet, citizen) loses nothing but his chains by resisting and refusing to pay into DRM schemes (with tax money in the case of UK citizens and the BBC). But if these schemes gain acceptability, then all content will eventually be locked down, so all "consumers" lose--even those who were willing to accept that some "premium 'content'" would be digitally restricted. Fortunately, if a human can see or hear something, a human can copy it so it's ultimately all a moot point: pervasive digital restrictions management will only serve to fuel a vast digital "underground" that will be underground only in name as social acceptability of its circumvention outweighs the shrill voice of the shills, the content "industry," and the politicians.

Then let the "content providers" take their ball and go home. If they think they're not leaving money on the table, their call. But keep your digital restrictions out of my living room.