Hardware-based attestation of the running software is an important security feature, especially in a world where data leaks and identity theft are rampant. Let's say I'm a healthcare provider, and I'm about to send sensitive medical data to a third party vendor. Wouldn't you prefer that this data only be able to be decrypted by a computer that can prove to the world it booted a clean OS image with all the latest security patches installed?
If the vendor wants to install some self-built OS that they trust on their computer and not update it for 5 years, that's their business, but I may not want to trust their computer to have access to my personal data.
Remote attestation gives more control to the owners of data to dictate how that data is processed on third-party machines (or even their own machines that may have been compromised). This is useful for more than just DRM.
No.
Contrarily unpopular opinion: You cannot own data except what resides on your own property. Once you give someone a copy, it is theirs to do with as they wish. They may tell you what they will and will not do, but it is entirely on you to trust them.
...and that's the peril of things like remote attestation and other "zero trust" crap. They replace the nuanced meaning of trust that holds society together (and has literally done so since the beginning of life) with absolutes enforced by an unrelenting machine controlled by some faceless bureaucracy which is also partly under the command of the government. There should already be enough dystopian sci-fi to convince everyone why that is a really bad idea.
We've already seen shades of this in banking. After chips were added to credit cards, people started having their chargebacks denied because "our records show the card was physically present" (even if the charge originated in another country)
How long until companies try to deny responsibility for data leaks because "our records show Windows was fully up-to-date and secure"