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.