This comment seems needlessly user-hostile, much like the same DRM you are railing against.

True true, wasn't meant to be hostile but I see that I wrote my comment unkindly.

I do think the point stands though. They are names for the same technology. How it is used, and who uses it will determine what type of spin I'd put on it.

Monitoring the integrity of a trusted audio decoder in my system's kernel: DRM

Monitoring the integrity of an open source tool that I bought and paid for: remote attestation.

Both will come down to various arrangements of trusted computing enclaves, asymmetric cryptography and groups trying to bypass said arrangements.

I couldn’t agree more. DRM is just hardware and software. It’s a tool and implementations matter. HDCP is one of those implementations that seem like a good idea but which have all kinds of side effects that make the product the DRM is part of (HDMI in this case) much less useful for certain fair use law abiding use cases. As long as we have the interoperability exception for breaking DRM there’s a way around but it would be better if interoperability was a requirement of accessibility standards in the first place.