| By applying the patch, you refuse to honour the document authors licensing agreements. They write a document, and release it onto the net for you to read, but not to print and or copy, that’s the condition under which they release the document. If you wish to something else, you have to strike a deal with the author himself.
If you think that their licensing sucks and because you don’t like it you can do as you wish to circumvent it, what say that anyone else should honour open source-licenses as GPL or BSD-license? Then you might as well let other people sell/expand GPLed software as they with disregarding of the GPL.
Of course this is absurd. Just because a copy protection is weak (non-existent?) does not mean that you should break it. The PDF copy-control has a great function to fill, it prevents ordinary users from doing things with PDF-files that the author didn’t want them do do, just because they could do it! It prevents the temptation of the moment.
If you are concerned with PDFs that have this type of copy-control enabled, please try to convince the authors to release them under “another license”, ie not using these features and create a publishing ethic where they are not used unless really necessary.
IMHO, there are few documents out there that are “protected” that really shouldn’t be. “Breaking” the copy-control would just undermine the PDF (as someone pointed out earlier) and force authors to switch to other less portable formats. The big looser in such a case would surely be the people like me and you, using non-windows OSes.