I don't think there's a great solution here. Content producers believe that DRM reduces copyright infringement to a level that they're at least somewhat comfortable with. Whether that's true or not is irrelevant; it's how they feel about it that matters. Making playback harder for the average customer isn't in anyone's best interests.

Yes and that is how a Technical Standards body should be making decisions, based on people/companies feelings ....

That is filling me with Confidence that the open web is in good hands with the w3c...

why can't DRM'ed video be difficult and unpleasant, but DRM-free videos be made much easier to implement, and have smooth experience for end users?

Why is DRM-free a non-starter? The whole point i wanted to make is that by making DRM'ed video easier to deploy (and consume), it normalizes the fact that _it's DRM_. Why are standards bodies putting in standards that consumers wouldn't ordinarily chooses, and is only meant to appease businesses? Why couldn't they be more socially oriented, such that anti-consumer mechanisms aren't added to an open standard?

Imagine if it weren't DRM, but anti-adblocking? What if the web standards bodies were attempting to prevent adblocking in a browser, in such a way that to be a compliant browser, you can't possibly intercept content? How is that any different to this DRM standard?

That ship has long, long sailed and, despite all predictions to the contrary, has actually been pretty good for users. Again, it's you who suggested everyone should stop and shittify the existing user experience that most people like. That's neither realistic nor constructive.

If they weren't DRMed I would have just downloaded them into space I control and there would have been none of this "oh he's not interested" BS guessing.

I deal with this kind of bovine exhaust regularly.

So, hell, no, DRM has NOT IN ANY WAY been good for me. ANYTHING that makes DRM less viable is an absolute good. Period.