Or video stops being distributed with DRM like almost all audio did. We would have won that war eventually if it wasn't made so easy to use. We were so close when the browsers started shunning plugins like flash. That standard has practically guranteed we will never see it happen.

When audio went DRM free there were options for in browser audio DRM. From RealMedia to Flash and everything in between. I don't think that attempting to standardise away DRM would work. They saw what happened to audio as a threat, not as an opportunity.

> Technically a plugin interface was defined as a web standard, what it connected to didn't necessarily have to contain DRM

> Of course in practice it was designed for DRM (and makes little sense outside of that)

So "WELL ACKCHYUALLY" but in defense of DRM?

Perhaps if the veneer of legitimacy is so transparently thin that you can't even be bothered to defend it yourself, you could just not grant it that legitimacy. The academic points really don't matter compared to the fact that you are defending stuff that is hurting us.

LPT: the cause that you are exercising your debate skills in favor of actually does matter, all causes are not actually equal.

The DRM is not a web standard. Thinking about it, it might actually be better if it was. An open DRM scheme could be reviewed by independent security researchers and open source cross platform implementations could be created.

And what benefit would an ironclad DRM scheme in the browser bring to the internet?

"I, for one, welcome web canvases with ads that I can never block or dismiss." That's what you're saying, right? Because that's what Google wants, at the end of the day.

Those apps will be no less intrusive, and significantly more powerful than what exists today. In fact, you are welcoming a reduction of our freedoms.

edit: God, RMS was right all along, there are no freedoms but end-user freedoms.

Blocking DRM on the web is easy. The big issue is the opposite, playing a video you have a right to, without arbitrary restrictions.

So much DRM will force you to use some particular software in some particular way with seemingly arbitrary restrictions. Frankly consumers would be much better off without DRM in the world.

> Blocking DRM on the web is easy.

It won't be after we expand the powers of plugins to get in underneath the layers you know. You can't block elements or code that you disagree with when there are no elements because everything is a web-canvas or plugin that is rendering underneath you.

Remember when Flash existed? Nobody could block dangerous elements of Flash, it was all or nothing. Why would you ever want to go back to that?

> Frankly consumers would be much better off without DRM in the world.

Great, we agree! So why do you think the powers of DRM should be expanded?

I think it should be restricted and indeed EME is more restricted than Flash.

At least then third-party DRM services, which could in theory work on any platform, would be viable.

With this "plugin interface" the DRM only has to come from the OS vendor. This is why you're now starting to see certain Netflix resolutions only working on certain browser. The browser vendors have already started abusing the real power of DRM: control over competition.

You only see video but this is not important.

The higher risk is that we will have DRM of everything. Imagine the implications if the whole web page is behind DRM.

To make this explicit for the less imaginative users: markup language as we know it ceases to exist. You interact with web content through something like Flash, and we get unblockable ads on everything, and any other conditions that content providers choose.

In theory third party DRM can work on any platform. That they don't is totally on the media industry.

That said it's true the standard should have done more to mandate browser agnosticism, seeing as big media doesn't care. Of course they still could have ignored that mandate.

> using apps outside of the browser for video sites

I would still prefer that than including DRM into web pages, at least it's a bit harder for users to use DRM.

Perhaps but there are issues with that. Users downloading a random app for every other site they visit is not a good habit to promote.

Secondly it would be very hard to convince the likes of Google and MS that DRM doesn't belong in the browser, especially because the industry wants it. The inconvenience of separate apps is precisely what would make them look for alternatives.

What the industry wants should be irrelevant to a "user agent" which is what a browser is supposed to be.

The typical user using the user agent also wants access to "premium content", and also typically is willing to jump through several hoops to get it. Like paying a lot to cable tv providers, signing up for international VPN, risking downloading viruses, etc. etc.

The danger with DRM in the browser being universally available is that more and more content will get locked behind it(say YouTube), but lets not pretend that content providers have not been willing to forgo some revenue in favor of locking things down. E.g Netflix, HBO etc.

Ok but tell that to Google or MS, I dare you.

I do, by using Firefox. Mozilla fought against it but eventually had their hands forced. I use it with EME disabled. Unfortunately, my voice alone wont change anything.

Exactly. So long as Google is onboard they'll be some kind of DRM on the web. Mozilla isn't dominant enough to stop an alliance between the media, Google and MS. So the question becomes what sort of DRM is the least worse option?