I would agree with the FSF statement that there will be more DRM on the web.
Where I differ is that I believe it would happen regardless. If it's not standard DRM, then it's Apple DRM and Windows DRM... like we already have.
> Standardization is explicit support and encouragement.
Standardization shouldn't be about good or bad. If enough people want to do something, there should be a standard.
Having said all of that, please don't get me wrong. I'm just clarifying how I feel. I do tend to have unpopular opinions. I don't have a dog in the race and I would be perfectly OK with DRM in general being rejected by the W3C because it is a terrible concept that ends up being paid for by consumers.
which is fragmentation, and bad for businesses that want DRM, but don't want to _pay_ the cost of fragmentation. By adding it to an open standard, they no longer need to deal with end fragmentation (which causes end user a bad experience). But the solution was never to standardize on DRM, but to standardize on _non-DRM_ formats! The pirates can obtain content regardless - DRM only hurts consumers in the long run.
I disagree that it does no harm. I agree with this quote from the article:
"If EME is ratified by the W3C, the FSF expects it to cause a long-term increase in the amount of DRM on the Web, by simplifying the DRM implementation process for streaming services."
Standardization is explicit support and encouragement.