The fact that you can build a browser which doesn't support DRM doesn't alter that fact that if we allow this in, W3C has officially sanctioned that the web, one bit and one platform at a time, can and shall be DRMed.

So sure. You can build a browser which only supports clear key. And that browser will not be a fully supported browser on this new encrypted and DRMed web. No FOSS-based platform will be a viable option to consume the web.

Now you can say that we have the same situation today, with Flash and Silverlight, so what's worse about this? Well: The fact that it has W3C's seal of "standard" approval written on it.

Congratulations: You just fragmented the WWW and to top it of you claim its a standard.

If we let this pass, in a year or two we will be having the same debate for <audio> and for <img> and for <script>. This is the beginning of the close-down on the web, and the only reasonable place to stop it, is at its root: No DRM, no EME and no CDMs in HTML5.

You can belittle those who disagree with you, saying they don't know what they are talking about. But it may just be that they are not so short-sighted about where this is heading as you seemingly are.

Right now Hollywood needs the web, more than the web needs Hollywood. Hollywood cannot afford not to be on this train. If we say "no DRM" enough times, they will come eventually. The music industry did. Everyone else did. Hollywood will.

Lets not sacrifice our open standards needlessly.

Hollywood doesn't need nor care about the web or the w3c apart from as a marketing avenue. They would be just as happy delivering all content through a standalone application, as they are doing currently.

Most likely the new generation of games consoles provides a more compelling platform for them to send content to you than a web browser.

There are no "CDMs in HTML5" , this is a nonesense statement.

There is no part of the proposal that advocates for any website to integrate any DRM solution, it is entirely a matter for individual site owners, the majority of whom do not want to put up hurdles for people to view their sites. The web will continue to work as it always has.

> Hollywood doesn't need nor care about the web or the w3c apart from as a marketing avenue. They would be just as happy delivering all content through a standalone application, as they are doing currently.

If they do not care, why are they pushing for getting a W3C stamp on their DRM system?

> There are no "CDMs in HTML5" , this is a nonesense statement.

To accept EME because proprietary CDM are outside of the spec is pure hypocrisy. To say that EME is okay because it would be working with clear-key systems too is complete BS, because such systems already exist and do not need EME. Hence the EME spec is only here to get standardised API for proprietary CDMs, which is why no one else but Hollywood, Netflix and Google & al. are pushing for this.

I would not care about EME, if they were not trying to integrate that into the W3C, which should stand for an open web, where free technologies are on equal footing with proprietary ones. EME would de facto force web users to have proprietary software installed in the form of CDM (which is DRM). Unacceptable.

The spec without CDM does not do anything at all. This spec goes hand-in-hand with having a proprietary CDM. So ultimately, standardising this at the W3C means having all open web users install a proprietary CDM.

Again, if this whole debate was outside discussing open web standards, this would be valid. But what we're discussing here is inclusion or not in open web standards.

Why are you so vocal about DRM any way? I know why people are against it and I can imagine why others are for it, so yeah, why do _you_ personally favor DRM?

Such API will encourage more DRM to be access through the browser, which in turn lets malware exploit such vectors in similar way that Java applets, active X and flash has been plagued by remote code exploits. The amount of money and greif caused by such malware is very high, and was a major incentive for moving to HTML 5. The draft in question would rather move so we had 10-20 more such lovely (in)secure plugins all being accessed through the API provided by the standard.

But you can believe that anyone objecting to that just hasn't read the draft if that makes your life easier.

Just disable the plugins or don't install them in the first place.

Thats a horrible solution to suggest. It's like suggesting that people go buy body armor to deal with crime. It non-scaling, do not address the issue, and leaves those most vulnerable exposed.

Malware like to target those that are willing to spend money online. That mean those people who are most targeted are also those who won't disable the plugins that makes them vulnerable to attack in the first place. W3C should focus on making people safer, rather than encourage a environment that consumer, producers and even publishers will be hurt by in the long run.

For whatever reason Big Media aren't going to allow you access to their content without the DRM. Not adding support for this standard will not change that.

If you have Silverlight installed or play big budget games from Steam/Origin etc the odds are that your system is already full of DRM crap.

Ultimately either consumers need to reject DRM or the media companies have to decide not to use it. However at the moment people seem quite happy to install it, so W3C are just making their lives marginally easier.

> For whatever reason Big Media aren't going to allow you access to their content without the DRM

What is "Big Media"? This is just pure speculation not based on facts.

There is plenty of high quality, paid-for content on the web already which does not require DRM.

IIRC, there are no more DRM on music on iTunes either.

It's just a matter of negotiating. If a company's better at negotiationg DRM-free content than Netflix, then too bad for Netflix. There's no reason why web users should support these costs.