We're talking about stupid, evil, legal DRM here. The pdf document basically says `oh, you're not supposed to do things with this document, because I say so'. There's nothing that prevents anyone from doing anything with the document.
If anything, our xpdf should probably display a notice that says `the author of the document thought you should not be able to print it... or whatever'. But there is no actual protection in the document. It's all stupid shackles in software. This is a case where I strongly believe in freedom: the end user should be able to decide what they can do with the document. And equality: knowledgeable technical users shouldn't have an edge. It's completely hypocritical to say `oh, you can recompile the software to remove the restriction', because it shuts down some users. As far as I'm concerned, you've got two levels of protection: legal and technical. This `drm' part of pdf is purely legal: you get a document, you are informed you're not supposed to do such and such, and THAT'S IT. There's no technical protection to speak of. For me, the legal barrier is quite enough. As adult, you can make an ethical choice whether or not to obey the spirit of the document author.
