[beeneto]

The proposal is to have a standard for a way the browser communicates with non-standards compliant DRM encumbered (essentially encrypted) video.

Anyone is still free to write a client which consumes the standards-compliant parts of the page, but will be unable to consume the non-standards compliant DRM encrypted video.

In this way, it is similar to existing non-standards compliant web plugins like flash. For a long time nobody could just sit down and write a client which consumed flash animations (they were bound by the flash license, which prohibited mobile flash runtimes for example).

I don't agree with this inclustion by the w3c myself, but your argument isn't a powerful argument against it. My objections to it revolve around the w3c overstepping their responsibility (why is it THEIR job to cater to one specific plugin family - is it being driven by political pressure), the futility of its inclusion (they expect an open source implementation, which probably isn't possible for this kind of technology), and the self contradictory statements in the original w3c announcement.

PS. Calling an argument bogus and leaving it at that isn't helpful. If you see flaws in an argument you have to identify them point by point.