[om2]

Let's say the W3C had the power to stop EME from existing, and not just to refuse to give its implied blessing.

Would the result be no DRM on "premium" video? I doubt it. The de fact approach before EME existed was to use plugins on desktop and a native app on mobile. If there was no EME, that's what we would still have (and indeed the transition is not over).

There are certainly problems with DRM. But the W3C's primary mission is to bring the web to its fullest potential. If fighting DRM meant ceding ground from the open web platform to plugins and native apps, then that doesn't seem like a good way to benefit the web.

[khedoros1]

> If fighting DRM meant ceding ground from the open web platform to plugins and native apps, then that doesn't seem like a good way to benefit the web.

Giving in to DRM seems to mean ceding ground to a binary-blob plugin, increasingly implemented such that it can't be removed from the browser. The difference that I see is that we're normalizing something that shouldn't be normalized, and killing off the open web in favor of corporate interests. It's a reasonable, practical concession, and simultaneously a step toward the death of what makes the web useful for things beyond entertainment.

[azakai]

Perhaps, it could go either way, but it did work out with music. It could have worked with movies too.

[om2]

Music has a different history and context. The music publishers started to use DRM-free music as a competitive wedge between sellers of digital music, mostly as a wedge against Apple. Then Apple decided to also go DRM-free.

Unfortunately music is backsliding because more of the market is moving to DRM-ful streaming services where you rent your music, instead of DRM-less music that you own free and clear.

[azakai]

Additional factors were Napster and the rise of file-sharing services.

While I agree the history and context is different, I don't see a fundamental difference between the two.

[bluejekyll]

How exactly did it work out for music? I like not having drm on my music for ease of use, but did it work out for the music industry?

As I understand it most money now comes from licensing deals, like commercials, as opposed to record sales.

I'm no fan of drm, but there is an interesting question about how people get paid for their work. DRM sucks for users... what do content producers do to protect their revenue stream?

[tveita]

> there is an interesting question about how people get paid for their work.

DRM on movies has zero technical effects right now, and still many people manage to get paid, somehow. Maybe they should continue doing what they're doing, but stop forcing privilege escalation bugs onto other people's computers and phones?

It's time to let go of the tiger prevention rock. DRM won't save anyone from copyright infringement, the users' willingness to pay will. Users will pay for convenience or out of respect, and the movie industry is busy undermining both, in part with DRM nonsense.