Copy protection steps in as an impediment to casual copying in a technological environment where other barriers have slowly disappeared. It is the goal of copy protection to encode a certain pattern of use onto the media used to transmit content. Different types of copy protection suggest different patterns of use: A video may be watched many times, but not copied without a significant loss in quality (Macrovision). A CD may be copied by the copy cannot be itself copied (Serial Copy Management System). A DVD may not be viewed outside the geographical region for which it was produced (Regional Coding) on an unauthorized machine or reproduced in any way (Content Scrambling System). By making personal copying difficult or impossible, the consumer is encouraged to purchase rather than copy.

Copy protection also makes it clearer that copying is not allowed or legal. Many people who engage in personal copying are not aware of the intricacies of copyright law and assume that it must not be against the law because it is so easy. Copy protection throws up a flag to the personal copier—it is difficult to acquire the necessary knowledge and equipment to circumvent copyright protection without becoming aware of the questionable legality of the act.

One of the problems with copy protection is the lack of subtlety in the manner which it limits the use of content. Copy protection appears as a lock on recordings people have purchased; though they own a copy of the recording (not the work itself) they are limited in the ways they may enjoy the work. CSS enabled devices prevent taking screen captures of movie stills and copying DVDs to videotape. The owner of a DVD is out of luck if they'd like to use a still from their favorite movie as screen wallpaper, or make a copy of the movie to watch in a place without a DVD player like a motorhome or cabin. Both of these are examples of activities prohibited by copy protection that lack any intent to defraud and have a tiny potential to decrease sales. The Supreme Court has ruled that such private home uses do not constitute copyright infringement.

This overt bias of copy protection in favor of the copyright owners over the people who purchase the works may be in line with previous limitations that were simply a fact of technology, however copy protection has a different character. Copy protection treats every consumer as a potential criminal. In attempting to prevent copying which deprives the copyright holder of compensation for their work, CSS also prevents fairly legitimate activities people undertake to enjoy the product and which pose little financial threat. Copy protection can't judge on a case-by-case basis; instead it throws a blanket across many uses regardless of intent or potential harm. At it's best this can be inconvenient, at it's worst it can seem to infringe on consumers’ own property rights and the expected freedom to enjoy what one has paid for.

Copy protection schemes also seem to deliberately cripple technologies like DVD, disallowing patterns of use that consumers would enjoy. Some people take issue with technological limitations imposed to favor the interest of a particular group. At the time DeCSS was first distributed, there was no way to play DVDs on Linux or Unix based operating systems; DeCSS allowed people though CSS does not limit non-movie uses of DVDs and the lack of secure copy protection may actually delay the widespread availability of DVD-R drives.