Maybe this comes from a lack of technical literacy. Maybe it comes from the fact that Microsoft and other large corporations indoctrinate children into thinking that proprietary software is acceptable. I don't know, and that is another front that needs to be fought.
However this is only one of the detriments that I listed of standardising EME.
> Keeping people's computers safe is a primary goal of browser vendors, and this improves that state of affairs.
It's unfortunate that this is the case. Don't get me wrong, security is very important, but security should not be the primary goal. The primary goal should be user freedom, with all other goals secondary.
To butcher a quote, "Those who would give up freedom, to purchase a little temporary security, deserve neither freedom nor security."
> Sure, DRM sucks, but at least the vendors can't root your machine and install keyloggers now.
Why are we as a community saying that corporations are allowed to piggyback on the hard work of the free software community to entrap users? Just because they might not be able to repeat their previous unethical and illegal actions such as installing rootkits (which I'm not sure I agree is accurate).
What work of the free software community? Except for Firefox, all browsers with any market share are developed by big corporations.
Not to mention that Chromium is a free sofware project. It doesn't matter that the largest contributor is Google (it does for the top-level discussion of why the hell did Chromium implement this), the project itself is free software and is thus part of the free software community.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I don't see how that's relevant to "bigcorps piggybacking on the work by the free software community". I'm pretty sure media corps would be fine with an IE world.
Not to mention that Chromium is a free sofware project. It doesn't matter that the largest contributor is Google (it does for the top-level discussion of why the hell did Chromium implement this), the project itself is free software and is thus part of the free software community.
Chromium is developed by the work paid by bigcorps, not by the free software community. The code being open source doesn't change this.
But that's not the world we live in. We live in a world where Firefox saved the web, Chrom{e,ium} has changed it as well (though they have done plenty of things I think are horrible). In _that world_, they are trying to piggyback off the current state of the web's open standards by adding extensions that will only work because the same browsers that made the web what it is today are now forced to implement EME.
> Chromium is developed by the work paid by bigcorps, not by the free software community. The code being open source doesn't change this.
By that logic, Linux is not developed by the free software community (80% of kernel development is done by developers paid by companies -- which I think is great).
I disagree with that goal being primary when it comes at the expense of user freedoms.
I for one prefer taking a small risk rather than living in some dystopia where all software must either run in crippled sandboxes or be approved by the central ruling committee for trusted computing.