Why Are Copy Protection Firms So Insecure?

It's amazing how insecure most copy protection firms seem to be. And, by insecure, I'm not talking about how they open up security holes, but how they react to criticism. Remember SunnComm, makers of the MediaMax copy protection scheme that began the process of suing Alex Halderman for pointing out that its copy protection could be defeated by pressing the shift key as you loaded the disc? Well, now we can add StarForce to the list. We first wrote about problems with their copy protection a few years ago, noting reports that it "installs itself without letting you know (not even in the EULA), hides itself on your PC, slows down the PC, causes all sorts of other problems and errors, and is nearly impossible to remove -- even after the protected application has been removed." Basically, it's no different than malware. Yesterday BoingBoing posted a similar story spurred on by a plan to boycott StarForce-enabled games... and the company responded by telling Cory Doctorow they were suing him (not clear for what), while also reporting him to the FBI for violating "approximately 11 international laws." It's unlikely (a) that they're really doing anything or (b) that, even if they did, any lawsuit or FBI interest would get anywhere. However, it does say something about these firms and their inability to take even the slightest criticism. Why not actually respond to the critics instead of trying to threaten them into submission? The threatening, of course, tends to backfire as the Streisand Effect kicks in and more people learn about the problems the company faces (and its inability to deal with them constructively). And, by constructively, we don't mean silly contests with conditions that are almost impossible to meet -- which is exactly what StarForce has done.