In recent years, copy protection measures made by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) have raised concerns as internet users realize that simple tasks could lead them into trouble. Copyrights forbade those who access copyrighted work to make and sell any derivative work similar to the copyrighted works. DMCA went a step further and came up with measures to control access of copyrighted works by depending on the circumstances and conditions. The anti-circumvention congress made these changes to address the concern that the internet could be used as a platform of sharing copyrighted songs and movies. Also, it was also concerned that movies and songs could be placed on the internet for all to share. A break in can permanently shatter the sense of security in one’s house, and people take complicated precautions to dramatically reduce the chances of an intruder gaining access to their homes. Some of the precautions people take to reduce the likelihood of a break-in include the use expensive sturdy locks and automatic security systems. Doors are also made of hardwood or metal to reduce the ease of breaking in. However, some laws against burglary encourage homeowners to use weak locks that will make it easier for a break-in. The homeowner can then take legal action anyone who breaks in.The two scenarios illustrated above show some similarities in their strategies for improving security in their different areas of application. First, the two approaches seem to lure lawbreakers to commit a crime for which they can be prosecuted. For example, groups like the American Foundation for the Blind testified that DMCA sued internet users over simple tasks such as unlocking their phones (Maiti 185). The group further said that DMCA intentionally harms researchers and technology users. Similarly, the use of weak locks by homeowners tend to lure thugs to break-in. The two statements are equally valid in the sense that they tend to make people commit crimes so that they can benefit from the money they will get after prosecution. Despite the similarities, the two scenarios are slightly different. DMCA prevents unlawful pirating by being very strict on the access of copyrighted works to that people are worried that unanticipated consequences would result. On the other hand, the law that reduces the incentive for homeowners to use sturdy locks seems to be lenient. DMCA intensifies measure to reduce pirating while the law that allows the use of weak locks increases the likelihood of committing a crime. These comparisons at some point make the two equally invalid (Maiti 184).Home burglary and copyrights affect the public sector under different sectors and areas of application. The question of whether home burglary is a good analogy for disabling copy protection would best be answered by into the two scenarios. I think home burglary is not an option that can be considered to ensure copy protection. To start with, home burglary is a crime by itself and entrusting it to control pirating would lead to devastating results. Secondly, home burglary and copy protection are found in different areas of application. Home burglary does not constitute of any legal policy that can be used by the general public ensure copy protection. Copyrights have the exception that the public can use copyrighted materials as long as the entire population is interested in the copyrighted materials. This notion works when it’s for the people’s best interest, for example, copyright allows schools to use learning materials such as plays and movies in their lessons despite them being copyrighted (Singh 528). Copyrights also provides a legal procedure that the public can use to when in need of copyrighted materials. For example, the legal procedure should be followed to allow the public use copyrighted characters during national events. The home burglary on the hand does is not performed for the public’s best interest. This fact also makes home burglary unfit to ensure copy protection.Works citedMaiti, Anindya, and S. Sivanesan. “Cloud controlled intrusion detection and burglary prevention stratagems in home automation systems.” Future Internet Communications (BCFIC), 2012 2nd Baltic Congress on. IEEE, 2012.Singh, Arielle. “Agency Regulation in Copyright Law: Rulemaking under the DMCA and its broader implications.” Berkeley Tech. LJ 26 (2011): 527.