But in practice DRM only restricts access to copyrighted works, including overriding rights which the state has granted me. If it managed rights, it does so faulty. If it manage restrictions, it does so correctly. The name then either reflect programmers that create faulty systems, or it is a incorrect name made in order to market something as better than it is.
Not every country has those rules and that's okay, but it's outragous when other countries bully yours to adopt their copyright laws. Besides that they also spy on you.
"Rights" is a misnomer. There are no "rights" being managed, it's all about restrictions. You don't add DRM to something to make it more open, you add DRM to make it more restricted.
The original name is some impressive marketing doublethink on the part of whoever coined the name, IMO.
But you're just flat wrong that there are no rights being managed. The right that is being managed is the only right of copyright: the right of the "owner" of some "property" to restrict the copying done by other parties. (the scare-quotes are there because I dispute the idea that "IP" is actually property)
"Rights" always make things more restricted than their absence; they restrict what people can do. Any right you might consider does not in fact guarantee that the entitled party actually gets the thing they have a right to; it only makes it illegal for other people (or governments or non-natural persons) to violate those rights. Right to freedom of movement doesn't give you the ability to cross oceans nor walk through walls, it only makes it illegal for others to put walls deliberately in your path. Etc.