Yes, that's the disgusting part. But so it goes. The flesh is weak.
Overlay darknets are indeed the only hope for freedom.
I don't understand these two sentences in conjunction, which is most of why I don't understand all the complaining about this issue. If, as almost everyone admits, the browser vendors are going to ship DRM-enabled playback one way or the other, what difference does it make whether it's in the official spec?
The HTML5 spec is just a piece of paper that exists to make web developers' lives easier. I don't understand the need to assign attributes like "purity" to it, especially when (as you yourself said), whether or not the DRM is in the spec changes nothing on the ground.
no, having a sanctioned DRM mechanism in an open standard means DRM is being normalized (and by extension, acceptable). The fact that DRM already exists as plugins isn't the point - but making DRM part of the web standard gives free reign for the pro-DRM camp that it's acceptable, or even desirable!
The only acceptable standard is one where the user benefits. I don't see how a user can benefit from DRM, except that this standard makes DRM less difficult to swallow for an end user (who, let's face it, don't give a shit about DRM). The added convenience of standardization means we can never get to a place where DRM-free content is the majority/norm.
I am sad too. Perhaps there was a window of time when we could have gotten rid of NPAPI plugins and not added DRM to implementations and forced media companies to come along. That didn't happen though.
Personally I am disgusted that this standard is being promoted by the W3C and Tim Berners-Fucking-Lee. The browser vendors are perfectly capable of building (and even standardizing) this tech by themselves.
The open web is as available today as it ever was, and even more so with blockchain and "dark web" technologies like tor and i2p.