| > If W3C did not recommend EME then the browser vendors would just make it outside W3C. Yes, Google and Microsoft - the browser vendors that created EME - would have done so anyhow, with or without the W3C. But that is no excuse for the W3C. If it would happen anyhow and so "doesn't matter", then why support it? Rejecting it would at minimum have had a strong symbolic meaning. > Do we worry that having put movies on the web, then content providers will want to switch also to use it for other media such as music and books? For music, I don’t think so, because we have seen industry move consciously from a DRM-based model to an unencrypted model, where often the buyer’s email address may be put in a watermark, but there is no DRM. And the same might have happened for movies, if we stopped Google, Microsoft, and Netflix from creating and promoting EME. The music industry didn't just "happen" to move away from DRM, it was a necessary response. > The web has to be universal EME has not and will not solve this. I cannot use a minority browser to view EME content, not unless the browser has an arrangement with the DRM vendor. That completely destroys universality. |
You're right. Also this is terrible for both the creators and the consumers since it promotes anticompetitive behavior by giant distributors. Here is a great interview with Doctorow on why DRM is a terrible idea, he uses publishing as an example but the idea applies to other creative branches - https://youtu.be/ZXu-_LBrf24?t=1800