The purpose is to extend what I as the producer of the files can do, giving me the ability to send you a file and still control your usage.

> ...giving me the ability to send you a file and still control your usage.

This is exactly why DRM is malware. It's not your device. You don't get to say what it may or may not do. That's for the device's owner to decide.

malware: Software that is specifically designed to disrupt, damage, or gain unauthorized access to a computer system. <https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/malware>

Your explicit intention is to disrupt the operation of the computer running the DRM software. This disruption is not authorized by the owner of the device. Ergo: malware.

Without DRM, I won't send you the file. If I don't send you the file, you can't play it at all. So DRM has increased what you can do.

> Without DRM, I won't send you the file.

If you're going to claim control over my computer in the process, I would prefer that you not send me the file. If the price is accepting DRM then it would be better for everyone if the file never existed.

I can still not send you the file if I have DRM. Now you are keeping control of your computer by not using any files with DRM, and arguing that nobody else should be given those options.

Look, if you want to keep the file to yourself unless I agree to run your DRM code on my PC, that's your choice (and mine). Just like rootkits are generally considered malware but it's not an issue if the owner of the PC chooses to install one. However, to be clear, the price is not just me accepting DRM in order to get the file from you but rather everyone being saddled with owner-hostile (and generally non-removable) code shipped with their computers by default and a legal system which grants special privileges and protections to purveyors of DRM, without which the technical measures would be far less effective.

I'm not complaining that you won't give me the file unless I run your DRM code. I'm complaining that your insistence on DRM is creating negative externalities for me and others even if we don't want the file.

There are lots of freedoms you can't contract away. It's not particularly odd to view DRM with that same lens.

And as a practical matter, while many services require DRM when it's easy to do so, in a world without DRM almost none would shut down.

Extends what you can do, by letting you control (limit) my usage.

So instead of "It is extra software with the only purpose to limit what I can do." we have "It is extra software with the only purpose to limit what I can do, on the bidding of someone else."

That's basically the same definition. The "someone else" part was already implied by the first half, obviously some party wants it or there would be no conflict. So we've reached a clearer and more explicit definition, but we've also shown that the original definition is not insincere at all!

This is what I could call are a sincere definition.

I understand why someone could view this as limiting, but saying DRM is malware and it's only purpose is to limit you is intentionally ignoring other information about DRM to make it sound even worse then it is.