The fact that you can build a browser which doesn't support DRM doesn't alter that fact that if we allow this in, W3C has officially sanctioned that the web, one bit and one platform at a time, can and shall be DRMed.
So sure. You can build a browser which only supports clear key. And that browser will not be a fully supported browser on this new encrypted and DRMed web. No FOSS-based platform will be a viable option to consume the web.
Now you can say that we have the same situation today, with Flash and Silverlight, so what's worse about this? Well: The fact that it has W3C's seal of "standard" approval written on it.
Congratulations: You just fragmented the WWW and to top it of you claim its a standard.
If we let this pass, in a year or two we will be having the same debate for <audio> and for <img> and for <script>. This is the beginning of the close-down on the web, and the only reasonable place to stop it, is at its root: No DRM, no EME and no CDMs in HTML5.
You can belittle those who disagree with you, saying they don't know what they are talking about. But it may just be that they are not so short-sighted about where this is heading as you seemingly are.
Right now Hollywood needs the web, more than the web needs Hollywood. Hollywood cannot afford not to be on this train. If we say "no DRM" enough times, they will come eventually. The music industry did. Everyone else did. Hollywood will.
Hollywood doesn't need nor care about the web or the w3c apart from as a marketing avenue. They would be just as happy delivering all content through a standalone application, as they are doing currently.
Most likely the new generation of games consoles provides a more compelling platform for them to send content to you than a web browser.
There are no "CDMs in HTML5" , this is a nonesense statement.
There is no part of the proposal that advocates for any website to integrate any DRM solution, it is entirely a matter for individual site owners, the majority of whom do not want to put up hurdles for people to view their sites. The web will continue to work as it always has.
> Hollywood doesn't need nor care about the web or the w3c apart from as a marketing avenue. They would be just as happy delivering all content through a standalone application, as they are doing currently.
If they do not care, why are they pushing for getting a W3C stamp on their DRM system?
> There are no "CDMs in HTML5" , this is a nonesense statement.
To accept EME because proprietary CDM are outside of the spec is pure hypocrisy. To say that EME is okay because it would be working with clear-key systems too is complete BS, because such systems already exist and do not need EME. Hence the EME spec is only here to get standardised API for proprietary CDMs, which is why no one else but Hollywood, Netflix and Google & al. are pushing for this.
I would not care about EME, if they were not trying to integrate that into the W3C, which should stand for an open web, where free technologies are on equal footing with proprietary ones. EME would de facto force web users to have proprietary software installed in the form of CDM (which is DRM). Unacceptable.
The spec without CDM does not do anything at all. This spec goes hand-in-hand with having a proprietary CDM. So ultimately, standardising this at the W3C means having all open web users install a proprietary CDM.
Again, if this whole debate was outside discussing open web standards, this would be valid. But what we're discussing here is inclusion or not in open web standards.
Why are you so vocal about DRM any way? I know why people are against it and I can imagine why others are for it, so yeah, why do _you_ personally favor DRM?
So sure. You can build a browser which only supports clear key. And that browser will not be a fully supported browser on this new encrypted and DRMed web. No FOSS-based platform will be a viable option to consume the web.
Now you can say that we have the same situation today, with Flash and Silverlight, so what's worse about this? Well: The fact that it has W3C's seal of "standard" approval written on it.
Congratulations: You just fragmented the WWW and to top it of you claim its a standard.
If we let this pass, in a year or two we will be having the same debate for <audio> and for <img> and for <script>. This is the beginning of the close-down on the web, and the only reasonable place to stop it, is at its root: No DRM, no EME and no CDMs in HTML5.
You can belittle those who disagree with you, saying they don't know what they are talking about. But it may just be that they are not so short-sighted about where this is heading as you seemingly are.
Right now Hollywood needs the web, more than the web needs Hollywood. Hollywood cannot afford not to be on this train. If we say "no DRM" enough times, they will come eventually. The music industry did. Everyone else did. Hollywood will.
Lets not sacrifice our open standards needlessly.