The ability for someone with a news article or a game to only have you experience it if you pay their fee or watch their ads, preventing you from copying the content off your device or modifying it in some way that is unauthorized (removing ads or otherwise modifying the behavior to circumvent protection mechanisms) is pretty obviously the exact same idea -- not some mere metaphor -- and is a protection of the exact same "right" conferred by the exact same laws as allowing someone with a movie to only have you see it if you pay their fee or watch their ads... I am honestly having a difficult time understanding your confusion here :/.
You are still talking about DRM in the context of copyright. If someone has a news article or a game, they have copyright on that article or game and they use DRM to protect their copyright. All these are applications of DRM.
Applications like Play Integrity could be quite different: say a bank can refuse to move money if your instructions to move money comes from a device deemed not trustworthy by Play Integrity. That's like a bank can refuse to let you into their branch if you are dressed in swimwear. A game can also deploy this tech for anti-cheating purposes; really no different from a real-world casino refusing a customer who is known to be good at card counting.
And this is the root cause you fail to understand - the idea of copyright contradicts the idea of information freedom. You should be able to make a copy for you own purposes such that when you go back, the information is still the same and not manipulated and you should be able to actually share this information given it's important. For example a news story about corruption that has been taken down.
Also why the hell you believe that the same copyright rules that apply to a movie that can take millions to make and keeps relevance for years should apply to a news article for example? It's madness.
Information freedom is merely an ideal not a right. It is an ideal by techno-optimists. But there is no legal basis for information to be free. Indeed I agree with you that the idea of copyright contradicts the idea of information freedom. And guess what, copyright is in our constitution, and information freedom is not.
Furthermore, there is also no legal basis in differentiating copyright by the budget involved to produce the work.
