They're similar in an actual sense. The pretty little UI in front of us is a facade for the reality of events. Having a legal framework that rests atop the foundations of a delusion is absolutely something we should chafe at, and not just accept.

Our society needs to come to terms with the reality that you can not just "show" someone a piece of information such that they no longer have it. We can't "move" information such that one party now has it and the other does not. And we should not provide legitimacy nor legal protections to the idea that some byzantian DRM encryption scheme can "hide the message" from the person who is receiving the message.

All of these gymnastics just to fit old square ideas into new round internet holes. It chafes me and it should chafe you that we have wasted all this effort on delusions.

All of our legal decisions are facades for the reality of existence. Money is the same, especially debt - why should we not chafe at the entire concept of debt?

These models are convenient fictions so we can rally around shared ideas. One of those shared ideas is that people can own information - it's not technically true, but we as a society have decided it as useful.

You may enter into an agreement with someone, and you may break it, and you may be subject to penalties. But we don't allow chains to be placed on someone in service of a contract. We don't have debtors prisons. We see the chance to have this now with computers.

No big deal right? All seems fine and dandy if it's just internet videos and DRM. Low stakes, right? What's it gonna look like with loan sharks and pacemakers? I assume you have a line, but where is it and why is it there?