> why is this a problem if the publisher doesn't want a third party to use their work without their permission, or at all?
Because whether they are allowed to do that is a determination that has to be made by the law, not the company.
Imagine someone is using your work for commercial gain and you want to sue them. If DRM is a thing and breaking it is illegal, you can't -- you need to make a copy of what's on their website to use as evidence against them, they put DRM on it that says you can't. (In practice this rarely happens because all the DRM is broken anyway, but what does that tell you?)
And the same situation plays out in a hundred different ways. Imagine politicians owned all the clips of them speaking and could throw anything that discredits them down the memory hole. Or evil companies could prevent the press from publishing incriminating documents.
It isn't a matter of whether there is some alternative. That is a thing that cannot be allowed to happen.
Because whether they are allowed to do that is a determination that has to be made by the law, not the company.
Imagine someone is using your work for commercial gain and you want to sue them. If DRM is a thing and breaking it is illegal, you can't -- you need to make a copy of what's on their website to use as evidence against them, they put DRM on it that says you can't. (In practice this rarely happens because all the DRM is broken anyway, but what does that tell you?)
And the same situation plays out in a hundred different ways. Imagine politicians owned all the clips of them speaking and could throw anything that discredits them down the memory hole. Or evil companies could prevent the press from publishing incriminating documents.
It isn't a matter of whether there is some alternative. That is a thing that cannot be allowed to happen.