"We have come to the point where Mozilla not implementing the W3C EME specification means that Firefox users have to switch to other browsers to watch content restricted by DRM."
Rather: "the browser where you cannot see DRM-infected video" - which is an active protection of the user against malware.
You should look at how Mozilla implemented EME then. The CDM is sandboxed, in a much stricter sandbox than the rest of the browser even. So no, the CDM potentially being dangerous (for privacy or security) isn't actually that much of an issue.
Of course, someone might at some point claim that the privacy features harm the copyrights protection, at which point choices will have to be made.
History provide ample evidence that Mozilla will make the choice their users ask for (which is, by the way, not necessarily the choice some users will voice the most loudly).
To be clear: if DRM is not implemented in browsers, Netflix and the like will just make native apps, which are far larger vectors of malware attack than the locked down EME standard is.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, but "people should just not watch DRMed video" is not an actual answer to the problem at hand.
This battle is lost, let's not lose the war to have our little Alamo moment.
It's the same logic that leads to them to support JavaScript.
Replace "play poker with his buddies" with "watch movies his buddies are talking about" and "Joe's Terrible Malware-Infested Poker Site" with "Netflix's DRM-Infested Site" and the results are the same every time. Your grandpa isn't likely to care if Netflix has DRM or not so long as it doesn't stop him watching movies. If Netflix, because it's the brand he and his buddies trust, tells him to install a thing to keep watching movies, he installs the thing.
Maybe, maybe you might be able to convince your grandpa to stop watching videos using that thing he installed because it's bad for his computer's health... but there are a lot of "grandpas" out there, it's a huge category of people that "I just want to do the thing and I don't care how so long as it works and is convenient".
I don't think this a question of timeframe, it's a question of do the right thing for the most users. There are a lot more "grandpas" than there are DRM-fighting or at least DRM-wary concerned citizens like you or me.
This is clearly written from the perspective of somebody who never did help desk work or helped family or friends with computer problems.
You can't solve this problem at the standard level or the browser level. You can only solve by education users enough that they see no DRM as a feature and at the legal level by enshrining user protections in law.
False dichotomy. Instead of exposing a small percentage of users to large attack vector (native app), you are exposing a very large percentage of users (close to 100%) with a lower attach vector. THe potential for damage is much, much higher, since it would affect about everyone using the Internet with major browsers.
Maybe go even further outside the box, use gngr: https://gngr.info/
This was rather the point of Fall of Men ("Zeitpunkt des Sündenfalls") in Firefox' history to me. It was also the point in time where I stopped donating to them.
Make the zero-tolerance for DRM a unique selling point of Firefox.
In summary, if you already have Firefox, you don't need to go download a separate build to opt out of DRM. You can just uncheck the "Play DRM-controlled content" checkbox in the prefs to get to the same configuration.
You just have to reframe it to something like: "protects you against websites that try to plant DRM-malware on your computer".
If anybody was forcing them, it were the media companies.
EDIT: Yes, and Apple, I completely forgot about iTunes.
I don't see them dropping it even if the HTML standard Firefox follows drops them, unless other browser vendors drop EME too.
And those working for Google attempting to divert attention to Hollywood are symptomatic of the reality distortion field and self deception of SV. Google is a spyware company engaged in mass surveillance and creepily following everyone on the planet for profit. There are no redeeming values here. SV is basically a gold rush with greed and money being the primary driver glossed over with dollops of pretension.
The world just has to step up to take control and diminish the ideology that drives SV. So far be it open source, web services, standards or regulations there is no contribution. Why are there no alternatives to Firefox, Google, Facebook and others? You can't be completely dependent on these companies and then claim victimhood.
If you're interested, I wrote up some notes/thoughts from my experience in one of the sessions about EME and whether to implement it:
They have consistently thrown in the towel while diluting the very things that users would choose them over Chrome for.
There are many ways to exert influence in this world. Mozilla is in SV and is very much part of the culture and ecosystem. We need genuine alternatives and activism against entrenched interests.
No.