Hear hear. The parent commenter's I-told-you-so attitude frustrates me because it completely misses the point: Google de-facto controls the web, and the W3C is essentially irrelevant. Trying to suggest that the W3C's opposition would have stopped any of this is completely naive, and only serves to shift the blame.
> DRM is the price one must pay to consume BIG MEDIA content.
It's just what big media has happened to get away with.
If they found themselves without a way for their paying customers to access their content via DRM, they'd drop the requirement on the spot, with little to no financial impact except for DRM scheme licensing fees.
While that's true at the moment, I had hoped that the web being such a big market, it would entice content producers to deploy without DRM for fear of losing market share to other content providers who do.
But with the introduction of DRM into the standard, this is no longer possible.
There are still plenty of providers who don't use DRM.
You just want the DRM users content but you want it without DRM.
So what really happened is the content producers enticed the users into DRM with their content. It's the other way around, and the consumers voted with their wallet (and clicks)