This is a complex topic with a lot of nuance to discuss, but I don't see how misrepresenting the EFF's position helps the discussion in any way.
When did I say that? Specifically? Why did you assume I'm ignorant of the way corporations operate?
That's on you. Not me.
> It's absolutely beneficial for browsers to have a standardized API for this stuff instead of non-standard plugin hell.
Except the standard that they adopted is not friendly to the end-user. So "Non standard plugin hell" becomes "standard DRM hell."
A while back Widevine stopped working for me after an update. Uninstalling and reinstalling didn't work. End result? Almost no video played in my browser. You know what still would have worked? Pirate Bay.
You can spin it however you want. DRM is good for content providers. It's not good for users.
If Netflix requires DRM - so be it. They've got good engineers, they can provide a DRM plugin that you have to use. Or a standalone player. If a service doesn't have good engineering, their service will suffer.
It doesn't need to be a part of the open web standard.
You were doing something wrong perhaps. I have never installed widevine, yet all videos online worked for me. Try uninstalling it completely.
When it's the first time they've broken with consensus, and the decision is very much not in the best interests of the common user - it's kind of a big deal.
DRM may be a necessity for corporations to feel they can make money safely - it's not consumer friendly, and it certainly doesn't need to be a part of the open standard.