I disagree. The point this article is making is that DRM, as it works, is highly conducive to "platform" power. Whether or not this is the "true purpose" is a

I disagree. The point this article is making is that DRM, as it works, is highly conducive to "platform" power. Whether or not this is the "true purpose" is a rather meaningless question, beyond casual rhetorical usage. The language of the legislation, legislators, perhaps judges will likely refer to protecting the moral rights of creators. IRL, "creator" can be whoever owns the Beatles catalogue. IRL, the who and how of controlling "playback and distribution," dictates what kind of a company will make the commercial gains. Those irl concerns exist, effect legislation and its details a lot. You could call those the "true purpose," but IMO there ain't no such thing as a generally true purpose. Different actors have different purposes.