> The unstated assumption here is that DRM that isn't a standard won't be built into a browser.
That's not the assumption (because DRM already existed in the browser before it became a web standard - remember Silverlight?).
But it's much less work for the entities providing the DRM when EME provides a common standard for them to work with. This lowers the pain (for them) of using DRM, which makes it harder to provide enough pressure on them to stop DRM.
EME commoditizes DRM, for better or worse. Like you said, a EME lowers the pain to adopt DRM. With a standard EME API and CENC (Common Encryption), services can easily support multiple DRM backends or switch DRM backends. I worry that increased competition between DRM providers will lead to an arms race of stronger DRM tech.
EME Standardized the Plugin err "extension" API. It in no way standardizes DRM. The Stardardization is around the way Javascript will be used to call inside HTML5 the browsers CDM (content decryption module" which is a plugin by another name.
There are currently 3 competing technologies, with more to come, that are incompatible with FOSS, incompatible with open systems
For Chrome Browsers there is Google Widevine CDM
For MS Browsers there is MS PlayReady
For Firefox there is Adobe Video CDM (which is basiclly the video playback part of Flash)
This is the problem with EME, Netflix, Google, and Microsoft have been masterful at their marketing of this to people that should be able to see past the bullshit
EME/CDM is still a binary browser plugin, Sure we "eliminate" flash and the need for a "3rd party" plugin, but in many ways that it worse, Before we had a standard Plugin API that allowed non-supported browser to make use of Flash, so there where many many many browser that could call the 3rd party flash application to make use of that content. Now those browsers are completely locked out. You will only be able to Access content on the Big 2, Chrome and IE, and maybe Firefox is they finalize their agreement with Adobe to bring in a Binary Blob into the Firefox Browser
It's worse than that. Competition drives price to zero. That means DRM providers need to get their revenue from some other way. The obvious way is to exploit (track, or worse) the user.
So if these businesses did earn money from DRM, you think they'd go "some extra profit by adding user tracking? Oh, no, thanks, we're good" and leave it on the table? Why?
That's not the assumption (because DRM already existed in the browser before it became a web standard - remember Silverlight?).
But it's much less work for the entities providing the DRM when EME provides a common standard for them to work with. This lowers the pain (for them) of using DRM, which makes it harder to provide enough pressure on them to stop DRM.