I couldn't imagine Stallman, Doctorow, or anyone else with as deep a desire for open systems having that divergent a reaction to the one most galling topic in the whole discussion.
"Admire this man, this William Wallace. Uncompromising men are easy to admire. He has courage, so does a dog. But it is exactly the ability to compromise that makes a man noble."
Sir Berners-Lee is such a nobility, should we as digital peasants knee before him? Feudalism of the Web is upon us.
We do need the Stallmans of the world to be a counter balance, but we won't be able to have him run the entire world. Consider him kind of Galadriel, if you give him the one ring then the world will despair as they love him.
Aren't those EME modules basically proprietary plugins?
>Firefox's implementation of EME uses an open-source sandbox to load the proprietary DRM modules, which are treated as plug-ins that are loaded when EME-encrypted content is requested.
So the W3C has to accept DRM to prevent it being in a proprietary plugin, and Firefox had to also accept the DRM to avoid being "the browser that can't play Netflix", and everyone effectively has to go along with it to ensure they still have a seat at the table on the issue, but it all, at the end, comes back to the MPAA, which isn't going to let you have a license to stream their content unless it is locked with DRM, regardless of how futile DRM actually is.