[ewzimm]

I'm not so sure that haivng a standard way to connect DRM to a browser is changing the Overton Window. It's a technical standard that no users are actually looking at. What percenage of the population would even know the difference between a NPAPI plugin and a HTML5 interface for DRM? If you went on the streets and asked people if they feel less in control of their media because the W3C approved a standard replacement for NPAPI in browsers, would anyone even understand what you're talking about?

There are historical examples where weak DRM became standard and never got replaced. Look at CSS for DVDs. It was broken early on, but nobody bothered to replace it because it was already standard and the hardware was out there for it. Yes, there's different copy protection on Blu-Ray, etc., but a lot of people still use DVDs, and they can easily back them up because of weak encryption.

There's definitely a lot of benefits to creating a culture that values personal control, but I'm just not sure this is working. I want a DRM-free world as much as anyone, but the message is muddled and people just want their Netflix. If Mozilla and the W3C both came out against it, Chrome, Safari, and Edge would still support it, and I think all it would do would make Firefox lose even more market share. I would love to see some evidence that it would come out another way.

[wyager]

Normal users aren't relevant players in the politics of DRM. It's everyone who's tech- and IP-literate who is involved in the politics of DRM.

[ewzimm]

The Overton window though is about what's acceptable in public discourse.

[pdkl95]

Yes. That was my point. The goal is to change public attitudes, not practical enforcement of copyright. This has always been about shifting public discourse.

> It's a technical standard that no users are actually looking at.

Of course users aren't looking at the standard. The shift happened with the technically-minded people that eventually make recommendations to their friends and family. Just look at this very thread where people like you already accept the premise that DRM is anything other than malware that gives control over your hardware to some other party. The fact that you are making arguments that use language such as calling DRM a "digital lock" demonstrates how far the Overton window has already moved.

> If you went on the streets and asked people if they feel less in control of their media because the W3C approved a standard replacement for NPAPI in browsers, would anyone even understand what you're talking about?

You're trying to frame that question to get the answer you want. Of course most people are not familiar with NPAPI. However, if skip the technical jargon and actually ask people about their experiences, you will get very clear answers. I've literally never met anybody that wasn't directly profiting from DRM that thinks crippled video players are fine. Many have mentioned the things they would like to do but can't because of DRM.

> standard replacement for NPAPI

EME is not a replacement for NPAPI. At best it's a replacement for the DRM in Flash.

> weak DRM became standard and never got replaced. Look at CSS for DVDs.

Except it did get replaced - which you admit - in the next version of the hardware (Blu-Ray). The only reason DVD wasn't affected is the large amount of existing hardware. It's simply not possible to update all of the existing hardware players.

However, web browsers are software that updates regularly.

[ewzimm]

I'm not a good representative of public discourse. I've read Richard Stallman's blog for over fifteen years.

What you're talking about with hardware is exactly my point. We're talking about encryption, which I'm sure you support for individuals. Public Key Encryption is great for when you want to send a secret message to someone you trust to keep it secret. But what if you don't trust them? You have to convince them to trust you to have some control over their system, even if in a jail or a restricted VM. DRM is sender-controlled encryption employed by software.

So what happens if you tell the sender you refuse to run software you don't control and they still don't trust you? Their only other option is to convince you to use hardware they control. So rejecting broadcaster-controlled software might just lead to a demand for more broadcaster-controlled hardware. It's been done for years, but now we're moving from a full hardware solution to a more software-based solution, something you can contain and easily run with whatever restrictions you want.

I'm not saying it's good, but I'm not saying it's definitely not progress either.