[AnthonyMouse]

> If you can point to one example of a website that implements DRM that otherwise wouldn't have, I'll buy this argument.

The argument that some companies will avoid things their customers hate seems illogical, but you'll believe me if I provide an anecdote?

> On the other side, I can point to many websites that removed Flash/Silverlight/other security nightmare plugins after implementing EME.

Which is irrelevant because it has had a long known solution: Only install terrible plugins in a virtual machine, or if you're paranoid on a separate physical machine (a used PC capable of playing HD video is <$50), and only use that machine for that purpose.

And yes, that is an inconvenience, which is a feature, because DRM should be as inconvenient as possible. So that fewer people will use it.

[lern_too_spel]

The argument is that nobody will go out of their way to implement DRM unless they are contractually obliged. As preposterous as your scenario sounds to me, I will grant you the argument if you can find a website that goes through the trouble to do it even though they don't have to. Note that this isn't an "anecdote" but a counterexample that disproves my proposition.

> Which is irrelevant because it has had a long known solution

Your "solution" is not a solution for 99.99% of web users, and it isn't a solution for the remaining .01% who have to deal with botnets created from the other 99.99%.

[AnthonyMouse]

> The argument is that nobody will go out of their way to implement DRM unless they are contractually obliged.

The less customers like something, the less willing a company will be to sign a contract obligating them to do it.

> Your "solution" is not a solution for 99.99% of web users

One device used only for watching media is called a television and something like 99.99% of Americans actually have one already.

[appleflaxen]

exactly. which is how it should be: a pain in the ass for your customers if you want them to install drm.

the cost should be born by the company who wants it, not the public.

why is this a bad thing for anybody but a content producer? and if it's not anybody else, then... why do we care? we have already legislated away the right to copy something in return for promoting creation. but the creation is going to happen one way or the other, so we need to go much further than the EFF advocates: we need to scale back copyright drastically.

it would have virtually zero cost to the public, and would not meaningfully affect creative output.