On the one hand, when people override trivial content protection measures, Internet commenters are up in arms about attempts to take recourse in the law. How can it be unlawful, commenters ask, for people to undertake actions that any semiliterate technical person instinctively knows how to do?
On the other hand, when rightsholders attempt to employ anything approaching sophisticated content protection, those same commenters are up in arms about the extent to which they're inconvenienced. To rub it in, they never fail to mention how content protection "doesn't stop pirates anyways".
What's a content producer to do? Give away their content for free, one supposes, and eventually go out of business. The Internet has spoken!
Late edit:
I think we get it, by the way. There's no worse sin that sacrificing convenience. Convenience is such an important principle on the Internet that it overrides practically all other concerns. "I would pay for this content", says the Internet 'pirate', "but HBO won't let me pay $2.99 an episode for it, so I'm entitled to take it."
But that's neither here nor there. I said the dilemma was "interesting", because it is. I didn't say Javascript DRM was a good idea.